Methods of reducing or preventing oxidation of small dense ldl or membrane polyunsaturated fatty acids

ABSTRACT

In various embodiments, the present invention provides methods of treating and/or preventing cardiovascular-related disease and, in particular, a method of reducing or preventing sdLDL oxidation in a subject, the method comprising administering to the subject a pharmaceutical composition comprising eicosapentaenoic acid or a derivative thereof.

RELATED APPLICATIONS

This application is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No.15/415,667 filed Jan. 25, 2017, which claims priority to U.S.Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 62/308,525 filed Mar. 15, 2016,the contents of which are hereby incorporated by reference in itsentirety.

BACKGROUND

Cardiovascular disease is one of the leading causes of death in theUnited States and most European countries. It is estimated that over 70million people in the United States alone suffer from a cardiovasculardisease or disorder including but not limited to high blood pressure,coronary heart disease, dyslipidemia, congestive heart failure andstroke. A need exists for improved treatments for cardiovasculardiseases and disorders.

SUMMARY

In one embodiment, the present disclosure provides a method of treatingor preventing atherosclerosis in a subject having a high baseline serumglucose level, the method comprising administering to the subject apharmaceutical composition comprising eicosapentaenoic acid or aderivative thereof such as ethyl eicosapentaenoate.

In one embodiment, the present disclosure provides a method of reducingor preventing membrane cholesterol domain formation in a subject in needthereof, the method comprising administering to the subject apharmaceutical composition comprising eicosapentaenoic acid or aderivative thereof.

In another embodiment, the present disclosure provides a method ofreducing or preventing sdLDL oxidation in a subject in need thereof, themethod comprising administering to the subject a pharmaceuticalcomposition comprising eicosapentaenoic acid or a derivative thereof.

In another embodiment, the present disclosure provides a method ofreducing or preventing membrane cholesterol domain formation in asubject in need thereof, the method comprising administering to thesubject a pharmaceutical composition comprising eicosapentaenoic acid ora derivative thereof.

In another embodiment, the present disclosure provides a method ofreducing or preventing oxidative modification of membranepolyunsaturated fatty acids in a subject in need thereof, the methodcomprising administering to the subject a pharmaceutical compositioncomprising eicosapentaenoic acid or a derivative thereof.

These and other embodiments of the present disclosure will be disclosedin further detail herein below.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE FIGURES

FIG. 1 depicts the effects of ethyl eicosapentaenoate (“EPA”) onglucose-induces membrane lipid peroxidation from 0-96 hours compared toglucose or vehicle control.

FIG. 2 depicts dose-dependent effects of EPA on glucose-induced membranelipid peroxidation in model membranes.

FIG. 3 shows a comparison of the effects of vitamin E and EPA onglucose-induced membrane lipid peroxidation in model membranes.

FIG. 4 shows representative X-ray diffraction patterns for modelmembranes prepared in the presence of glucose and treated with vehiclecontrol (top row), vitamin E (middle row), or EPA (bottom row) at 0hours (left column), 72 hours (middle column) and 96 hours (rightcolumn).

FIG. 5 depicts the quantitative assessment of the comparative effects ofvitamin E and EPA on glucose- and peroxidation-induced cholesteroldomain formation.

FIG. 6 shows a comparison of the combined effects of EPA andatorvastatin o-hydroxy (active) metabolite (“ATM”) to EPA alone and ATMalone on glucose-induced membrane lipid peroxidation.

FIG. 7 depicts a schematic representation of one possible mechanism toexplain antioxidant and membrane structural effects of EPA.

FIG. 8 depicts the effects of glucose with or without any one of EA, ETEor EPA on lipid hydroperoxide formation compared to control.

FIG. 9 depicts the effects of glucose with or without any one of EA, ETEor EPA on lipid hydroperoxide formation compared to control after 96hours.

FIG. 10 depicts the dose-dependent effects of EPA and vitamin E on sdLDLoxidation after 2 hours.

FIG. 11 depicts the dose-dependent antioxidant effects of EPA in humansdLDL compared to non-fractionated LDL.

FIG. 12 shows the dose-dependent effects of EPA on human sdLDL oxidationas measured by colorimetric assay of TBARS formation and expressed asmolar equivalents of malondialdehyde (“MDA”). Values are mean+/−S.D.(N=3). **p<0.001 versus vehicle-treated control; ^(†)p<0.001 versus 1.0μM EPA; ^(§) p<0.001 versus 2.5 μM EPA; ^(¶)p<0.05 versus 5.0 μM EPA(Student-Newman-Keuls multiple comparisons test; overall ANOVA:p<0.0001, F=2960.1).

FIG. 13 shows the dose-dependent effects of atorvastatin o-hydroxy(active) metabolite (“ATM”) on human sdLDL oxidation as measured bycolorimetric assay of TBARS formation and expressed as molar equivalentsof MDA. Values are mean+/−S.D. (N=3). *p<0.05 and **p<0.001 versusvehicle-treated control; ^(†)p<0.01 versus 0.10 μM ATM; ^(§) p<0.001versus 0.5 μM ATM; ^(¶)p<0.001 versus 1.0 μM ATM (Student-Newman-Keulsmultiple comparisons test; overall ANOVA: p<0.0001, F=745.92).

FIG. 14 shows the separate and combined effects of EPA and ATM on humansdLDL oxidation as measured by colorimetric assay of TBARS formation andexpressed as molar equivalents of MDA. Values are mean+/−S.D. (N=3).*p<0.01 and **p<0.001 versus vehicle-treated control; ^(†)p<0.05 and^(‡)p<0.001 versus EPA; ^(§) p<0.05 and ^(§§) p<0.001 versus 0.5 μM ATM;^(¶)p<0.001 versus 1.0 μM ATM; ^(u)p<0.001 versus EPA+0.5 μM ATM(Student-Newman-Keuls multiple comparisons test; overall ANOVA:p<0.0001, F=118.22).

FIG. 15 shows the separate and combined effects of EPA (1.0 μM) and ATMon human sdLDL oxidation expressed as percent decrease in MDA formationrelative to vehicle-treated control. Data was collected after 1 hour ofexposure to oxidative conditions. Values are mean+/−S.D. (N=3). *p<0.01and **p<0.001 versus vehicle-treated control (Student-Newman-Keulsmultiple comparisons test; overall ANOVA: p<0.0001, F=118.22).^(†)p<0.05 and ^(‡)p<0.001 versus EPA; ^(§) p<0.05 and ^(§§) p<0.001versus 0.5 μM ATM; ^(¶)p<0.001 versus 1.0 μM ATM; ^(♦)p<0.001 versusEPA+0.5 μM ATM (Student-Newman-Keuls multiple comparisons test; overallANOVA: p<0.0001, F=92.011).

FIG. 16 shows the comparative effects of EPA, fenofibrate (“Fenofib”),nicotinic acid (niacin), gemfibrozil (“Gemfib”) and vitamin E (all at 10μM) on human sdLDL oxidation. Data were collected after 1 hour ofexposure to oxidative conditions. Values are mean+/−S.D. (N=3).**p<0.001 versus vehicle-treated control; ^(‡)p<0.001 versusfenofibrate, niacin, or gemfibrozil; ^(§) p<0.001 versus Vit E(Student-Newman-Keuls multiple comparisons test; overall ANOVA:p<0.0001, F=1268.1).

FIG. 17 shows the separate and combined effects of EPA and atorvastatin(“Atorva”) on human sdLDL oxidation. Each agent was tested at 10 μM.Data were collected after 1 hour of exposure to oxidative conditions.Values are mean+/−S.D. (N=3). **p<0.001 versus vehicle-treated control;^(†)p<0.001 versus atorvastatin alone (Student-Newman-Keuls multiplecomparisons test; overall ANOVA: p<0.0001, F=3962.4).

FIG. 18 shows the comparative effects of EPA, fenofibrate, nicotinicacid and gemfibrozil, alone or in combination with atorvastatin, onhuman sdLDL oxidation. Each agent was tested at 10 μM. Data werecollected after 1 hours of exposure to oxidative conditions. Values aremean±S.D. (N=3). **p<0.001 versus vehicle-treated control; ^(‡)p<0.001versus all other TG-lowering agents, alone or in combination with Atorva(Student-Newman-Keuls multiple comparisons test; overall ANOVA:p<0.0001, F=1365.7).

FIG. 19 shows the comparative effects of EPA and DHA on human sdLDLoxidation. Both agents were tested at 10 μM. Data were collected after 4hours of exposure to oxidative conditions. Values are mean+/−S.D. (N=3).**p<0.001 versus vehicle-treated control; ^(‡)p<0.001 versus DHA(Student-Newman-Keuls multiple comparisons test; overall ANOVA:p<0.0001, F=211.20).

FIG. 20 shows the comparative effects of EPA and DHA on the rate oflipid oxidation in human sdLDL. Samples were prepared at 100 μg/mL sdLDLand incubated with EPA or DHA (10.0 μM each) for 30 minutes prior toinitiating lipid oxidation using 10 μM CuSO₄. Samples were maintained at37° C. in a shaking water bath for 1 hour. Lipid oxidation was measuredby colorimetric assay of TBARS formation and expressed as molarequivalents of MDA. Values shown are the averages calculated from threeseparate measurements.

FIG. 21 shows the dose-dependent effects of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA)on human LDL oxidation. Samples were prepared at 100 μg/mL LDL andincubated with test agents (at doses indicated) for 30 minutes prior toinitiating lipid oxidation using 10 μM CuSO₄. Samples were maintained at37° C. in a shaking water bath for 1 hour. Lipid oxidation was measuredby colorimetric assay of TBARS formation and expressed as molarequivalents of MDA. Values are mean+/−S.D. (N=3). **p<0.001 versusvehicle-treated control; ^(†)p<0.001 versus 1.0 μM EPA; ^(§) p<0.001versus 2.5 μM EPA (Student-Newman-Keuls multiple comparisons test;overall ANOVA: p<0.0001, F=298.14).

FIG. 22 shows the dose-dependent effects of atorvastatin o-hydroxy(active) metabolite (ATM) on human LDL oxidation. Samples were preparedat 100 μg/mL LDL and incubated with test agents (at doses indicated) for30 minutes prior to initiating lipid oxidation using 10 μM CuSO₄.Samples were maintained at 37° C. in a shaking water bath for 1 hour.Lipid oxidation was measured by colorimetric assay of TBARS formationand expressed as molar equivalents of MDA. Values are mean+/−S.D. (N=3).*p<0.05 and **p<0.001 versus vehicle-treated control; †p<0.05 and‡p<0.001 versus 0.10 μM ATM; § p<0.001 versus 0.5 μM ATM; ^(¶)p<0.001versus 1.0 μM ATM; ^(♦)p<0.05 versus 5.0 μM ATM (Student-Newman-Keulsmultiple comparisons test; overall ANOVA: p<0.0001, F=438.91). Valuesare mean±S.D. (N=3).

FIG. 23 shows the separate and combined effects of EPA and ATM on humanLDL oxidation (expressed as molar MDA equivalents). EPA was tested at1.0 μM. Data were collected after 1 hour of exposure to oxidativeconditions. Values are mean+/−S.D. (N=3). **p<0.001 versusvehicle-treated control; ^(†)p<0.05 and ^(‡)p<0.001 versus EPA; ^(§)p<0.001 versus 0.5 μM ATM; ^(¶)p<0.001 versus 1.0 μM ATM; ^(♦)p<0.001versus EPA+0.5 μM ATM (Student-Newman-Keuls multiple comparisons test;overall ANOVA: p<0.0001, F=142.74).

FIG. 24 shows the separate and combined effects of EPA and ATM on humanLDL oxidation (expressed as % decrease in MDA formation relative tovehicle-treated control). EPA was tested at 1.0 μM. Data were collectedafter 1 hour of exposure to oxidative conditions. Values are mean+/−S.D.(N=3). **p<0.001 versus vehicle-treated control (Student-Newman-Keulsmultiple comparisons test; overall ANOVA: p<0.0001, F=142.74).^(‡)p<0.001 versus EPA; ^(§) p<0.05 and ^(§§) p<0.001 versus 0.5 μM ATM;^(¶)p<0.001 versus 1.0 μM ATM; ^(♦)p<0.05 versus EPA +0.5 μM ATM(Student-Newman-Keuls multiple comparisons test; overall ANOVA:p<0.0001, F=39.502).

FIG. 25 shows the comparative effects of EPA, fenofibrate, nicotinicacid, gemfibrozil, and vitamin E on human LDL oxidation. All agents weretested at 10 μM. Data were collected after 1 hour of exposure tooxidative conditions. Values are mean+/−S.D. (N=3). **p<0.001 versusvehicle-treated control; ^(†)p<0.01 versus fenofibrate, nicotinic acid,or gemfibrozil; ^(§) p<0.001 versus vitamin E (Student-Newman-Keulsmultiple comparisons test; overall ANOVA: p<0.0001, F=132.37).

FIG. 26 shows the separate and combined effects of EPA and atorvastatinon human LDL oxidation. Each agent was tested at 10 μM. Data werecollected after 1 hour of exposure to oxidative conditions. Values aremean+/−S.D. (N=3). *p<0.001 versus vehicle-treated control; ^(†)P<0.001versus atorvastatin alone (Student-Newman-Keuls multiple comparisonstest; overall ANOVA: p<0.0001, F=790.78).

FIG. 27 shows the separate and combined effects of EPA and atorvastatino-hydroxy (active) metabolite (ATM) on the ratio of NO to ONOO⁻ releasedfrom HUVECs exposed to oxidized low-density lipoprotein (oxLDL). Valuesare mean+/−S.D. (N=3-7). *p<0.05 versus vehicle alone (no oxLDL);^(†)p<0.05 versus oxLDL+vehicle (Student-Newman-Keuls multiplecomparisons test; overall ANOVA: p<0.0307, F=4.162).

FIG. 28 shows the separate and combined effects of docosahexaenoic acid(DHA) and ATM on NO release from HUVECs exposed to oxLDL for one hour.Values are mean+/−S.D. (N=4-16). *p<0.01 versus vehicle alone (nooxLDL); ^(†)p<0.05 and ^(‡)p<0.01 versus oxLDL+vehicle(Student-Newman-Keuls multiple comparisons test; overall ANOVA:p=0.0007, F=6.630).

FIG. 29 shows the effects of ATM, alone or in combination with EPA, DHA,fenofibrate (Febofib), nicotinic acid (Niacin), or gemfibrozil (Gemfib)on NO release from HUVECs exposed to oxLDL. Values are mean+/−S.D.(N=4-16). *p<0.05 versus vehicle alone (no oxLDL); ^(†)p<0.01 versusoxLDL+vehicle (Student-Newman-Keuls multiple comparisons test; overallANOVA: p=0.0080, F=3.309).

FIG. 30 shows the effects of EPA, Fenofib, Niacin and Gemfib, each incombination with ATM, on the ratio of NO to ONOO⁻ release from HUVECsexposed to oxLDL. Values are mean+/−S.D. (N=3-7). *p<0.05 versus vehiclealone (no oxLDL); ^(†)p<0.05 versus oxLDL+vehicle (Student-Newman-Keulsmultiple comparisons test; overall ANOVA: p=0.0188, F=4.236).

FIG. 31 shows representative x-ray diffraction patterns collected fromcholesterol-enriched model membranes treated with vehicle (control),eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA), docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), EPA-DHAcombination treatment, fenofibrate

(Fenofib), nicotinic acid (Niacin), gemfibrozil (Gemfib), glycyrrhizin(Glyc), arachidonic acid (AA), α-linolenic acid (ALA), ordocosapentaenoic acid (DPA).

FIG. 32 shows the comparative effects of EPA, DHA, EPA-DHA combinationtreatment, and fenofibrate on membrane cholesterol domain structuralintegrity.

FIG. 33 shows the comparative effects of EPA, DHA, EPA-DHA combinationtreatment, fenofibrate and glycyrrhizin (Glyc) on membrane cholesteroldomain structural integrity.

FIG. 34 shows the comparative effects of EPA, DHA, EPA-DHA combinationtreatment, fenofibrate, glycyrrhizin (Glyc), and docosapentaenoic acid(DPA) on membrane cholesterol domain structural integrity. Each agentwas tested at D/P mole ratio of 1:30 and treated immediately with thedifferent agents. Values are mean±SEM (N=3-6). *p<0.01 versus control;†p<0.05 versus DHA; § p<0.01 versus Fenofib; ¶p<0.05 versus DPA(Student-Newman-Keuls multiple comparisons test; overall ANOVA:p=0.0946, F=1.864).

FIG. 35 shows the comparative effects of α-linolenic acid (ALA),arachidonic acid (AA), eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA), docosapentaenoicacid (DPA), docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), and glycyrrhizin (Glyc) onmembrane cholesterol domain structural integrity. Each agent was testedat D/P mole ratio of 1:30. Values are mean±SEM (N=3-6). *p<0.01 and**p<0.001 versus control; †p<0.05 and ‡p<0.001 versus DHA; § p<0.01versus DPA (Student-Newman-Keuls multiple comparisons analysis; overallANOVA: p<0.0001, F=12.021).

FIG. 36 shows the comparative effects of α-linolenic acid (ALA),arachidonic acid (AA), eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA), docosapentaenoicacid (DPA), docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), EPA-DHA combination treatment,and glycyrrhizin (Glyc) on membrane cholesterol domain structuralintegrity. Each agent was tested at D/P mole ratio of 1:30. Values aremean±SEM (N=3-6). *p<0.05 and **p<0.01 versus control; †p<0.01 vs. DHA;§ p<0.05 versus DPA (Student-Newman-Keuls multiple comparisons analysis;overall ANOVA: p=0.0004, F=6.855).

FIG. 37 shows the dose-dependent disruptive effects of EPA on thestructural integrity of pre-existing membrane cholesterol domains.

FIG. 38 shows sdLDL oxidation in the presence or absence ofhyperglycemic conditions.

FIG. 39 depicts the reduction of glucose-induced sdLDL oxidation by EPAin a dose-dependent manner.

FIG. 40 shows comparative reductions in glucose-induced sdLDL oxidationby various agents. Each agent was tested at 10 μM. Data were collectedfollowing exposure to oxidation conditions for 1 hr. Values aremean±S.D. (N=3). *p<0.001 versus vehicle-treated control; †p<0.01 and‡p<0.001 versus glucose (Glu; 200 mg/dL) alone; § p<0.001 versusFenofib, Niacin, or Gemfib (with glucose) treatments(Student-Newman-Keuls multiple comparisons test; overall ANOVA:p<0.0001, F=211.23).

FIG. 41 shows the increase in glucose-induced sdLDL oxidation withVitamin E. Each agent was tested at 10 μM. Data were collected followingexposure to oxidation conditions for 1 hr. Values are mean±S.D. (N=3).*p<0.001 versus vehicle-treated control; †p<0.05 and ‡p<0.001 versusglucose (Glu; 200 mg/dL) alone; § p<0.001 versus Fenofib, Niacin, orGemfib (with glucose) treatments (Student-Newman-Keuls multiplecomparisons test; overall ANOVA: p<0.0001, F=216.14).

FIG. 42 shows the effects of oxidized low-density lipoprotein (oxLDL) onnitric oxide (NO) and peroxynitrite (ONOO⁻) release from human umbilicalvein endothelial cells (HUVECs) pre-treated with eicosapentaenoic acid(EPA), atorvastatin o-hydroxy (active) metabolite (ATM), EPA/ATMcombination, docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), fenofibrate (Fenofib),gemfibrozil (Gemfib), or nicotinic acid (Niacin).

FIG. 43 compares the effects of EPA, DHA, and EPA/ATM combinationtreatment NO and ONOO⁻ release from HUVECs treated concomitantly withoxLDL.

FIG. 44 compares the effects of EPA, DHA, and EPA/ATM combinationtreatment on NO and ONOO⁻ release from HUVECs treated concomitantly withnative LDL (and then exposed to oxidative conditions) versus cellstreated with oxLDL directly.

FIG. 45 shows a schematic diagram of a NO/ONOO⁻ nanosensor positioned tomeasure NO and/or ONOO⁻ emitted by an endothelial cell. The sensor ismade by depositing a sensing material on the tip of carbon fiber with adiameter of 0.5 μm. The fiber is sealed with nonconductive epoxy andelectrically connected to wires (gold, copper) with conductive silverepoxy. Conductive films of polymeric Ni(II) tetrakis(3-methoxy-4-hydroxyphenyl) porphyrin and Mn(III) [2.2]paracyclophanylporphyrin were used for the NO and ONOO⁻ sensors,respectively.

FIG. 46 shows the comparative effects of EPA, ATM, EPA+ATM combinationtreatment, DHA, fenofibrate (Fenofib), and Niacin on nitric oxide (NO)release from glomerular endothelial cells exposed ex vivo tohyperglycemic conditions (300 mg/dL glucose) and oxidized LDL (oxLDL).Values are mean±SEM (N=4-8). **p<0.001 vs. control; ^(†)p<0.05,^(‡)p<0.01, and ^(#)p<0.001 vs. glucose (Glu); ^(§§) p<0.001 vs. vehicle(Veh); ^(¶¶)p<0.01 vs. separate EPA, ATM, DHA, Fenofib, or Niacintreatments (Student-Newman-Keuls multiple comparisons test; overallANOVA: p<0.0001, F=44.005).

FIG. 47 shows the comparative effects of EPA, ATM, EPA+ATM combinationtreatment, DHA, Niacin, and Fenofibrate (Fenofib), on peroxynitrite(ONOO⁻) release from glomerular endothelial cells exposed tohyperglycemic conditions (300 mg/dL glucose) and oxidized LDL (oxLDL) exvivo. Values are mean±SEM (N=4-7). *p<0.05 and **p<0.001 vs. control;^(§) p<0.05 vs. vehicle (Veh) (Student-Newman-Keuls multiple comparisonstest; overall ANOVA: p<0.0001, F=6.6064).

FIG. 48 shows the comparative effects of EPA, ATM, EPA+ATM combinationtreatment, Niacin, and Fenofibrate (Fenofib), on the ratio of NO toONOO⁻ release from glomerular endothelial cells exposed to hyperglycemicconditions (300 mg/dL glucose) and oxidized LDL (oxLDL) ex vivo. Valuesare mean±SEM (N=4-5). **p<0.001 vs. control; ^(†)p<0.05 and ^(#p<)0.001vs. glucose (Glu); ^(§) p<0.05 and ^(§§) p<0.001 vs. vehicle (Veh);^(¶)p<0.05 vs. separate EPA, ATM, DHA, Fenofib, or Niacin treatments(Student-Newman-Keuls multiple comparisons test; overall ANOVA:p<0.0001, F=34.416).

DETAILED DESCRIPTION

While the present invention is capable of being embodied in variousforms, the description below of several embodiments is made with theunderstanding that the present disclosure is to be considered as anexemplification of the invention, and is not intended to limit theinvention to the specific embodiments illustrated. Headings are providedfor convenience only and are not to be construed to limit the inventionin any manner. Embodiments illustrated under any heading may be combinedwith embodiments illustrated under any other heading.

The use of numerical values in the various quantitative values specifiedin this application, unless expressly indicated otherwise, are stated asapproximations as though the minimum and maximum values within thestated ranges were both preceded by the word “about.” Also, thedisclosure of ranges is intended as a continuous range including everyvalue between the minimum and maximum values recited as well as anyranges that can be formed by such values. Also disclosed herein are anyand all ratios (and ranges of any such ratios) that can be formed bydividing a disclosed numeric value into any other disclosed numericvalue. Accordingly, the skilled person will appreciate that many suchratios, ranges, and ranges of ratios can be unambiguously derived fromthe numerical values presented herein and in all instances such ratios,ranges, and ranges of ratios represent various embodiments of thepresent invention.

In one embodiment, the invention provides a method for treatment and/orprevention of a cardiovascular-related disease. The term“cardiovascular-related disease” herein refers to any disease ordisorder of the heart or blood vessels (i.e. arteries and veins) or anysymptom thereof. Non-limiting examples of cardiovascular-related diseaseand disorders include hypertriglyceridemia, hypercholesterolemia, mixeddyslipidemia, coronary heart disease, vascular disease, stroke,atherosclerosis, arrhythmia, hypertension, myocardial infarction, andother cardiovascular events.

The term “treatment” in relation a given disease or disorder, includes,but is not limited to, inhibiting the disease or disorder, for example,arresting the development of the disease or disorder; relieving thedisease or disorder, for example, causing regression of the disease ordisorder; or relieving a condition caused by or resulting from thedisease or disorder, for example, relieving, preventing or treatingsymptoms of the disease or disorder. The term “prevention” in relationto a given disease or disorder means: preventing the onset of diseasedevelopment if none had occurred, preventing the disease or disorderfrom occurring in a subject that may be predisposed to the disorder ordisease but has not yet been diagnosed as having the disorder ordisease, and/or preventing further disease/disorder development ifalready present.

In one embodiment, the present invention provides a method of reducingor preventing membrane cholesterol domain formation in a subject in needthereof, the method comprising administering to the subject apharmaceutical composition comprising eicosapentaenoic acid or aderivative thereof. In one embodiment, the method comprises measuringmembrane cholesterol domain formation in the subject prior to and/orafter administering to the subject a pharmaceutical compositioncomprising eicosapentaenoic acid or a derivative thereof. In oneembodiment, the method comprises a step of determining a reduction in orabsence of an increase in cholesterol domain formation in the subject.

In another embodiment, the present invention provides a method ofreducing or preventing oxidative modification of membranepolyunsaturated fatty acids in a subject in need thereof, the methodcomprising administering to the subject a pharmaceutical compositioncomprising eicosapentaenoic acid or a derivative thereof. In oneembodiment, the method comprises comprising a step of measuringoxidative modification of membrane polyunsaturated fatty acids in thesubject before and/or after administering to the subject thepharmaceutical composition comprising eicosapentaenoic acid or aderivative thereof. In one embodiment, the method comprises a step ofdetermining a reduction in or absence of an increase in oxidativemodification of membrane polyunsaturated fatty acids in the subject.

In one embodiment, the subject or subject group in need thereof has oneor more of: hypercholesterolemia, familial hypercholesterolemia, highLDL-C serum levels, high total cholesterol levels, and/or low HDL-Cserum levels.

In another embodiment, the subject or subject group being treated has abaseline triglyceride level (or median baseline triglyceride level inthe case of a subject group), fed or fasting, of at least about 300mg/dl, at least about 400 mg/dl, at least about 500 mg/dl, at leastabout 600 mg/dl, at least about 700 mg/dl, at least about 800 mg/dl, atleast about 900 mg/dl, at least about 1000 mg/dl, at least about 1100mg/dl, at least about 1200 mg/dl, at least about 1300 mg/dl, at leastabout 1400 mg/dl, or at least about 1500 mg/dl, for example about 400mg/dl to about 2500 mg/dl, about 450 mg/dl to about 2000 mg/dl or about500 mg/dl to about 1500 mg/dl.

In one embodiment, the subject or subject group being treated inaccordance with methods of the invention has previously been treatedwith Lovaza® and has experienced an increase in, or no decrease in,LDL-C levels and/or non-HDL-C levels. In one such embodiment, Lovaza®therapy is discontinued and replaced by a method of the presentinvention.

In another embodiment, the subject or subject group being treated inaccordance with methods of the invention exhibits a fasting baselineabsolute plasma level of free EPA (or mean thereof in the case of asubject group) not greater than about 0.70 nmol/ml, not greater thanabout 0.65 nmol/ml, not greater than about 0.60 nmol/ml, not greaterthan about 0.55 nmol/ml, not greater than about 0.50 nmol/ml, notgreater than about 0.45 nmol/ml, or not greater than about 0.40 nmol/ml.In another embodiment, the subject or subject group being treated inaccordance with methods of the invention exhibits a baseline fastingplasma level (or mean thereof) of free EPA, expressed as a percentage oftotal free fatty acid, of not more than about 3%, not more than about2.5%, not more than about 2%, not more than about 1.5%, not more thanabout 1%, not more than about 0.75%, not more than about 0.5%, not morethan about 0.25%, not more than about 0.2% or not more than about 0.15%.In one such embodiment, free plasma EPA and/or total fatty acid levelsare determined prior to initiating therapy.

In another embodiment, the subject or subject group being treated inaccordance with methods of the invention exhibits a fasting baselineabsolute plasma level of total fatty acid (or mean thereof) not greaterthan about 250 nmol/ml, not greater than about 200 nmol/ml, not greaterthan about 150 nmol/ml, not greater than about 100 nmol/ml, or notgreater than about 50 nmol/ml.

In another embodiment, the subject or subject group being treated inaccordance with methods of the invention exhibits a fasting baselineplasma, serum or red blood cell membrane EPA level not greater thanabout 70 μg/ml, not greater than about 60 μg/ml, not greater than about50 μg/ml, not greater than about 40 μg/ml, not greater than about 30μg/ml, or not greater than about 25 μg/ml.

In another embodiment, methods of the present invention comprise a stepof measuring the subject's (or subject group's mean) baseline lipidprofile prior to initiating therapy. In another embodiment, methods ofthe invention comprise the step of identifying a subject or subjectgroup having one or more of the following: baseline non-HDL-C value ofabout 200 mg/dl to about 400 mg/dl, for example at least about 210mg/dl, at least about 220 mg/dl, at least about 230 mg/dl, at leastabout 240 mg/dl, at least about 250 mg/dl, at least about 260 mg/dl, atleast about 270 mg/dl, at least about 280 mg/dl, at least about 290mg/dl, or at least about 300 mg/dl; baseline total cholesterol value ofabout 250 mg/dl to about 400 mg/dl, for example at least about 260mg/dl, at least about 270 mg/dl, at least about 280 mg/dl or at leastabout 290 mg/dl; baseline vLDL-C value of about 140 mg/dl to about 200mg/dl, for example at least about 150 mg/dl, at least about 160 mg/dl,at least about 170 mg/dl, at least about 180 mg/dl or at least about 190mg/dl; baseline HDL-C value of about 10 to about 60 mg/dl, for examplenot more than about 40 mg/dl, not more than about 35 mg/dl, not morethan about 30 mg/dl, not more than about 25 mg/dl, not more than about20 mg/dl, or not more than about 15 mg/dl; and/or baseline LDL-C valueof about 50 to about 300 mg/dl, for example not less than about 100mg/dl, not less than about 90 mg/dl, not less than about 80 mg/dl, notless than about 70 mg/dl, not less than about 60 mg/dl or not less thanabout 50 mg/dl.

In a related embodiment, upon treatment in accordance with the presentinvention, for example over a period of about 1 to about 200 weeks,about 1 to about 100 weeks, about 1 to about 80 weeks, about 1 to about50 weeks, about 1 to about 40 weeks, about 1 to about 20 weeks, about 1to about 15 weeks, about 1 to about 12 weeks, about 1 to about 10 weeks,about 1 to about 5 weeks, about 1 to about 2 weeks or about 1 week, thesubject or subject group exhibits one or more of the following outcomes:

(a) reduced triglyceride levels compared to baseline or control;

(b) reduced Apo B levels compared to baseline or control;

(c) increased HDL-C levels compared to baseline or control;

(d) no increase in LDL-C levels compared to baseline or control;

(e) a reduction in LDL-C levels compared to baseline or control;

(f) a reduction in non-HDL-C levels compared to baseline or control;

(g) a reduction in VLDL levels compared to baseline or control;

(h) an increase in apo A-I levels compared to baseline or control;

(i) an increase in apo A-I/apo B ratio compared to baseline or control;

(j) a reduction in lipoprotein A levels compared to baseline or control;

(k) a reduction in LDL particle number compared to baseline or control;

(l) an increase in LDL size compared to baseline or control;

(m) a reduction in remnant-like particle cholesterol compared tobaseline or control;

(n) a reduction in oxidized LDL compared to baseline or control;

(o) no change or a reduction in fasting plasma glucose (FPG) compared tobaseline or control;

(p) a reduction in hemoglobin A_(1c) (HbA_(1c)) compared to baseline orcontrol;

(q) a reduction in homeostasis model insulin resistance compared tobaseline or control;

(r) a reduction in lipoprotein associated phospholipase A2 compared tobaseline or control;

(s) a reduction in intracellular adhesion molecule-1 compared tobaseline or control;

(t) a reduction in interleukin-6 compared to baseline or control;

(u) a reduction in plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 compared tobaseline or control;

(v) a reduction in high sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) comparedto baseline or control;

(w) an increase in serum or plasma EPA compared to baseline or control;

(x) an increase in red blood cell (RBC) membrane EPA compared tobaseline or control;

(y) a reduction or increase in one or more of serum phospholipid and/orred blood cell content of docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), docosapentaenoicacid (DPA), arachidonic acid (AA), palmitic acid (PA), stearidonic acid(SA) or oleic acid (OA) compared to baseline or control;

(z) a reduction in or prevention of membrane cholesterol domainformation compared to baseline or control; and/or

(aa) a reduction in or prevention of oxidative modification of membranepolyunsaturated fatty acids compared to baseline or control; and or

(bb) no increase, no substantial increase, or a reduction in oxidizedsdLDL compared to baseline or control.

In one embodiment, upon administering a composition of the invention toa subject, the subject exhibits a decrease in triglyceride levels, anincrease in the concentrations of EPA and DPA (n−3) in red blood cells,and an increase of the ratio of EPA:arachidonic acid in red blood cells.In a related embodiment the subject exhibits substantially no or noincrease in RBC DHA.

In one embodiment, methods of the present invention comprise measuringbaseline levels of one or more markers set forth in (a)-(bb) above priorto dosing the subject or subject group. In another embodiment, themethods comprise administering a composition as disclosed herein to thesubject after baseline levels of one or more markers set forth in(a)-(bb) are determined, and subsequently taking an additionalmeasurement of said one or more markers.

In another embodiment, upon treatment with a composition of the presentinvention, for example over a period of about 1 to about 200 weeks,about 1 to about 100 weeks, about 1 to about 80 weeks, about 1 to about50 weeks, about 1 to about 40 weeks, about 1 to about 20 weeks, about 1to about 15 weeks, about 1 to about 12 weeks, about 1 to about 10 weeks,about 1 to about 5 weeks, about 1 to about 2 weeks or about 1 week, thesubject or subject group exhibits any 2 or more of, any 3 or more of,any 4 or more of, any 5 or more of, any 6 or more of, any 7 or more of,any 8 or more of, any 9 or more of, any 10 or more of, any 11 or moreof, any 12 or more of, any 13 or more of, any 14 or more of, any 15 ormore of, any 16 or more of, any 17 or more of, any 18 or more of, any 19or more of, any 20 or more of, any 21 or more of, any 22 or more of, any23 or more of, any 24 or more of, any 25 or more of, any 26 or more of,any 27 or more of, or all 28 of outcomes (a)-(bb) described immediatelyabove.

In another embodiment, upon treatment with a composition of the presentinvention, the subject or subject group exhibits one or more of thefollowing outcomes:

(a) a reduction in triglyceride level of at least about 5%, at leastabout 10%, at least about 15%, at least about 20%, at least about 25%,at least about 30%, at least about 35%, at least about 40%, at leastabout 45%, at least about 50%, at least about 55% or at least about 75%(actual % change or median % change) as compared to baseline;

(b) a less than 30% increase, less than 20% increase, less than 10%increase, less than 5% increase or no increase in non-HDL-C levels or areduction in non-HDL-C levels of at least about 1%, at least about 3%,at least about 5%, at least about 10%, at least about 15%, at leastabout 20%, at least about 25%, at least about 30%, at least about 35%,at least about 40%, at least about 45%, at least about 50%, at leastabout 55% or at least about 75% (actual % change or median % change) ascompared to baseline;

(c) substantially no change in HDL-C levels, no change in HDL-C levels,or an increase in HDL-C levels of at least about 5%, at least about 10%,at least about 15%, at least about 20%, at least about 25%, at leastabout 30%, at least about 35%, at least about 40%, at least about 45%,at least about 50%, at least about 55% or at least about 75% (actual %change or median % change) as compared to baseline;

(d) a less than 60% increase, a less than 50% increase, a less than 40%increase, a less than 30% increase, less than 20% increase, less than10% increase, less than 5% increase or no increase in LDL-C levels or areduction in LDL-C levels of at least about 5%, at least about 10%, atleast about 15%, at least about 20%, at least about 25%, at least about30%, at least about 35%, at least about 40%, at least about 45%, atleast about 50%, at least about 55%, at least about 55% or at leastabout 75% (actual % change or median % change) as compared to baseline;

(e) a decrease in Apo B levels of at least about 5%, at least about 10%,at least about 15%, at least about 20%, at least about 25%, at leastabout 30%, at least about 35%, at least about 40%, at least about 45%,at least about 50%, at least about 55% or at least about 75% (actual %change or median % change) as compared to baseline;

(f) a reduction in vLDL levels of at least about 5%, at least about 10%,at least about 15%, at least about 20%, at least about 25%, at leastabout 30%, at least about 35%, at least about 40%, at least about 45%,at least about 50%, or at least about 100% (actual % change or median %change) compared to baseline;

(g) an increase in apo A-I levels of at least about 5%, at least about10%, at least about 15%, at least about 20%, at least about 25%, atleast about 30%, at least about 35%, at least about 40%, at least about45%, at least about 50%, or at least about 100% (actual % change ormedian % change) compared to baseline;

(h) an increase in apo A-I/apo B ratio of at least about 5%, at leastabout 10%, at least about 15%, at least about 20%, at least about 25%,at least about 30%, at least about 35%, at least about 40%, at leastabout 45%, at least about 50%, or at least about 100% (actual % changeor median % change) compared to baseline;

(i) a reduction in lipoprotein (a) levels of at least about 5%, at leastabout 10%, at least about 15%, at least about 20%, at least about 25%,at least about 30%, at least about 35%, at least about 40%, at leastabout 45%, at least about 50%, or at least about 100% (actual % changeor median % change) compared to baseline;

(j) a reduction in mean LDL particle number of at least about 5%, atleast about 10%, at least about 15%, at least about 20%, at least about25%, at least about 30%, at least about 35%, at least about 40%, atleast about 45%, at least about 50%, or at least about 100% (actual %change or median % change) compared to baseline;

(k) an increase in mean LDL particle size of at least about 5%, at leastabout 10%, at least about 15%, at least about 20%, at least about 25%,at least about 30%, at least about 35%, at least about 40%, at leastabout 45%, at least about 50%, or at least about 100% (actual % changeor median % change) compared to baseline;

(l) a reduction in remnant-like particle cholesterol of at least about5%, at least about 10%, at least about 15%, at least about 20%, at leastabout 25%, at least about 30%, at least about 35%, at least about 40%,at least about 45%, at least about 50%, or at least about 100% (actual %change or median % change) compared to baseline;

(m) a reduction in oxidized LDL of at least about 5%, at least about10%, at least about 15%, at least about 20%, at least about 25%, atleast about 30%, at least about 35%, at least about 40%, at least about45%, at least about 50%, or at least about 100% (actual % change ormedian % change) compared to baseline;

(n) substantially no change, no significant change, or a reduction (e.g.in the case of a diabetic subject) in fasting plasma glucose (FPG) of atleast about 5%, at least about 10%, at least about 15%, at least about20%, at least about 25%, at least about 30%, at least about 35%, atleast about 40%, at least about 45%, at least about 50%, or at leastabout 100% (actual % change or median % change) compared to baseline;

(o) substantially no change, no significant change or a reduction inhemoglobin A_(1c) (HbA_(1c)) of at least about 5%, at least about 10%,at least about 15%, at least about 20%, at least about 25%, at leastabout 30%, at least about 35%, at least about 40%, at least about 45%,or at least about 50% (actual % change or median % change) compared tobaseline;

(p) a reduction in homeostasis model index insulin resistance of atleast about 5%, at least about 10%, at least about 15%, at least about20%, at least about 25%, at least about 30%, at least about 35%, atleast about 40%, at least about 45%, at least about 50%, or at leastabout 100% (actual % change or median % change) compared to baseline;

(q) a reduction in lipoprotein associated phospholipase A2 of at leastabout 5%, at least about 10%, at least about 15%, at least about 20%, atleast about 25%, at least about 30%, at least about 35%, at least about40%, at least about 45%, at least about 50%, or at least about 100%(actual % change or median % change) compared to baseline;

(r) a reduction in intracellular adhesion molecule-1 of at least about5%, at least about 10%, at least about 15%, at least about 20%, at leastabout 25%, at least about 30%, at least about 35%, at least about 40%,at least about 45%, at least about 50%, or at least about 100% (actual %change or median % change) compared to baseline;

(s) a reduction in interleukin-6 of at least about 5%, at least about10%, at least about 15%, at least about 20%, at least about 25%, atleast about 30%, at least about 35%, at least about 40%, at least about45%, at least about 50%, or at least about 100% (actual % change ormedian % change) compared to baseline;

(t) a reduction in plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 of at least about5%, at least about 10%, at least about 15%, at least about 20%, at leastabout 25%, at least about 30%, at least about 35%, at least about 40%,at least about 45%, at least about 50%, or at least about 100% (actual %change or median % change) compared to baseline;

(u) a reduction in high sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) of atleast about 5%, at least about 10%, at least about 15%, at least about20%, at least about 25%, at least about 30%, at least about 35%, atleast about 40%, at least about 45%, at least about 50%, or at leastabout 100% (actual % change or median % change) compared to baseline;

(v) an increase in serum, plasma and/or RBC EPA of at least about 5%, atleast about 10%, at least about 15%, at least about 20%, at least about25%, at least about 30%, at least about 35%, at least about 40%, atleast about 45%, at least about 50%, at least about 100%, at least about200% or at least about 400% (actual % change or median % change)compared to baseline;

(w) an increase in serum phospholipid and/or red blood cell membrane EPAof at least about 5%, at least about 10%, at least about 15%, at leastabout 20%, at least about 25%, at least about 30%, at least about 35%,at least about 40%, at least about 45%, at least about 50%, at leastabout 100%, at least about 200%, or at least about 400% (actual % changeor median % change) compared to baseline;

(x) a reduction or increase in one or more of serum phospholipid and/orred blood cell DHA, DPA, AA, PA and/or OA of at least about 5%, at leastabout 10%, at least about 15%, at least about 20%, at least about 25%,at least about 30%, at least about 35%, at least about 40%, at leastabout 45%, at least about 50%, at least about 55% or at least about 75%(actual % change or median % change) compared to baseline;

(y) a reduction in total cholesterol of at least about 5%, at leastabout 10%, at least about 15%, at least about 20%, at least about 25%,at least about 30%, at least about 35%, at least about 40%, at leastabout 45%, at least about 50%, at least about 55% or at least about 75%(actual % change or median % change) compared to baseline;

(z) a reduction in membrane cholesterol domain formation of at leastabout 10%, at least about 15%, at least about 20%, at least about 25%,at least about 30%, at least about 35%, at least about 40%, at leastabout 45%, at least about 50%, at least about 55%, at least about 60%,at least about 65%, at least about 70%, at least about 75%, at leastabout 80%, at least about 85%, at least about 90%, at least about 95%,at least about 98%, at least about 99%, or about 100% (actual % changeor median % change) compared to baseline or control;

(aa) a reduction in oxidative modification of membrane polyunsaturatedfatty acids of at least about 10%, at least about 15%, at least about20%, at least about 25%, at least about 30%, at least about 35%, atleast about 40%, at least about 45%, at least about 50%, at least about55%, at least about 60%, at least about 65%, at least about 70%, atleast about 75%, at least about 80%, at least about 85%, at least about90%, at least about 95%, at least about 98%, at least about 99%, orabout 100% (actual % change or median % change) compared to baseline orcontrol; and/or

(bb) no increase, no substantial increase, or a reduction in oxidizedsdLDL of at least about 5%, at least about 10%, at least about 15%, atleast about 20%, at least about 25%, at least about 30%, at least about35%, at least about 40%, at least about 45%, at least about 50%, atleast about 55%, at least about 60%, at least about 65%, at least about70%, at least about 75%, at least about 80%, at least about 85%, atleast about 90%, at least about 95%, or greater than 95% (actual %change or median % change) compared to baseline or control.

In one embodiment, methods of the present invention comprise measuringbaseline levels of one or more markers set forth in (a)-(bb) prior todosing the subject or subject group. In another embodiment, the methodscomprise administering a composition as disclosed herein to the subjectafter baseline levels of one or more markers set forth in (a)-(bb) aredetermined, and subsequently taking a second measurement of the one ormore markers as measured at baseline for comparison thereto.

In another embodiment, upon treatment with a composition of the presentinvention, for example over a period of about 1 to about 200 weeks,about 1 to about 100 weeks, about 1 to about 80 weeks, about 1 to about50 weeks, about 1 to about 40 weeks, about 1 to about 20 weeks, about 1to about 15 weeks, about 1 to about 12 weeks, about 1 to about 10 weeks,about 1 to about 5 weeks, about 1 to about 2 weeks or about 1 week, thesubject or subject group exhibits any 2 or more of, any 3 or more of,any 4 or more of, any 5 or more of, any 6 or more of, any 7 or more of,any 8 or more of, any 9 or more of, any 10 or more of, any 11 or moreof, any 12 or more of, any 13 or more of, any 14 or more of, any 15 ormore of, any 16 or more of, any 17 or more of, any 18 or more of, any 19or more of, any 20 or more of, any 21 or more of, any 22 or more of, any23 or more of, any 24 or more of, any 25 or more of, any 26 or more of,any 27 or more of, or all 28 of outcomes (a)-(bb) described immediatelyabove.

Parameters (a)-(y) can be measured in accordance with any clinicallyacceptable methodology. For example, triglycerides, total cholesterol,HDL-C and fasting blood sugar can be sample from serum and analyzedusing standard photometry techniques. VLDL-TG, LDL-C and VLDL-C can becalculated or determined using serum lipoprotein fractionation bypreparative ultracentrifugation and subsequent quantitative analysis byrefractometry or by analytic ultracentrifugal methodology. Apo A1, Apo Band hsCRP can be determined from serum using standard nephelometrytechniques. Lipoprotein (a) can be determined from serum using standardturbidimetric immunoassay techniques. LDL particle number and particlesize can be determined using nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR)spectrometry. Remnant lipoproteins and LDL-phospholipase A2 can bedetermined from EDTA plasma or serum and serum, respectively, usingenzymatic immunoseparation techniques. Oxidized LDL, intercellularadhesion molecule-1 and interleukin-6 levels can be determined fromserum using standard enzyme immunoassay techniques. These techniques aredescribed in detail in standard textbooks, for example TietzFundamentals of Clinical Chemistry, 6^(th) Ed. (Burtis, Ashwood andBorter Eds.), WB Saunders Company. Parameters (z) to (bb) can bemeasured in accordance with any clinically acceptable methodology or canbe estimated by any suitable in vitro experiment, for example, onesimilar to that described in Examples 3-7.

In one embodiment, subjects fast for up to 12 hours prior to bloodsample collection, for example about 10 hours.

In another embodiment, the present invention provides a method oftreating or preventing primary hypercholesterolemia and/or mixeddyslipidemia (Fredrickson Types IIa and IIb) in a patient in needthereof, comprising administering to the patient one or morecompositions as disclosed herein. In a related embodiment, the presentinvention provides a method of reducing triglyceride levels in a subjector subjects when treatment with a statin or niacin extended-releasemonotherapy is considered inadequate (Frederickson type IVhyperlipidemia).

In another embodiment, the present invention provides a method oftreating or preventing risk of recurrent nonfatal myocardial infarctionin a patient with a history of myocardial infarction, comprisingadministering to the patient one or more compositions as disclosedherein.

In another embodiment, the present invention provides a method ofslowing progression of or promoting regression of atheroscleroticdisease in a patient in need thereof, comprising administering to asubject in need thereof one or more compositions as disclosed herein.

In another embodiment, the present invention provides a method oftreating or preventing very high serum triglyceride levels (e.g. TypesIV and V hyperlipidemia) in a patient in need thereof, comprisingadministering to the patient one or more compositions as disclosedherein.

In another embodiment, the present invention provides a method oftreating subjects having very high serum triglyceride levels (e.g.greater than 1000 mg/dl or greater than 2000 mg/dl) and that are at riskof developing pancreatitis, comprising administering to the patient oneor more compositions as disclosed herein.

In one embodiment, a composition of the invention is administered to asubject in an amount sufficient to provide a daily dose ofeicosapentaenoic acid of about 1 mg to about 10,000 mg, 25 about 5000mg, about 50 to about 3000 mg, about 75 mg to about 2500 mg, or about100 mg to about 1000 mg, for example about 75 mg, about 100 mg, about125 mg, about 150 mg, about 175 mg, about 200 mg, about 225 mg, about250 mg, about 275 mg, about 300 mg, about 325 mg, about 350 mg, about375 mg, about 400 mg, about 425 mg, about 450 mg, about 475 mg, about500 mg, about 525 mg, about 550 mg, about 575 mg, about 600 mg, about625 mg, about 650 mg, about 675 mg, about 700 mg, about 725 mg, about750 mg, about 775 mg, about 800 mg, about 825 mg, about 850 mg, about875 mg, about 900 mg, about 925 mg, about 950 mg, about 975 mg, about1000 mg, about 1025 mg, about 1050 mg, about 1075 mg, about 1100 mg,about 1025 mg, about 1050 mg, about 1075 mg, about 1200 mg, about 1225mg, about 1250 mg, about 1275 mg, about 1300 mg, about 1325 mg, about1350 mg, about 1375 mg, about 1400 mg, about 1425 mg, about 1450 mg,about 1475 mg, about 1500 mg, about 1525 mg, about 1550 mg, about 1575mg, about 1600 mg, about 1625 mg, about 1650 mg, about 1675 mg, about1700 mg, about 1725 mg, about 1750 mg, about 1775 mg, about 1800 mg,about 1825 mg, about 1850 mg, about 1875 mg, about 1900 mg, about 1925mg, about 1950 mg, about 1975 mg, about 2000 mg, about 2025 mg, about2050 mg, about 2075 mg, about 2100 mg, about 2125 mg, about 2150 mg,about 2175 mg, about 2200 mg, about 2225 mg, about 2250 mg, about 2275mg, about 2300 mg, about 2325 mg, about 2350 mg, about 2375 mg, about2400 mg, about 2425 mg, about 2450 mg, about 2475 mg, about 2500 mg,2525 mg, about 2550 mg, about 2575 mg, about 2600 mg, about 2625 mg,about 2650 mg, about 2675 mg, about 2700 mg, about 2725 mg, about 2750mg, about 2775 mg, about 2800 mg, about 2825 mg, about 2850 mg, about2875 mg, about 2900 mg, about 2925 mg, about 2950 mg, about 2975 mg,about 3000 mg, about 3025 mg, about 3050 mg, about 3075 mg, about 3100mg, about 3125 mg, about 3150 mg, about 3175 mg, about 3200 mg, about3225 mg, about 3250 mg, about 3275 mg, about 3300 mg, about 3325 mg,about 3350 mg, about 3375 mg, about 3400 mg, about 3425 mg, about 3450mg, about 3475 mg, about 3500 mg, about 3525 mg, about 3550 mg, about3575 mg, about 3600 mg, about 3625 mg, about 3650 mg, about 3675 mg,about 3700 mg, about 3725 mg, about 3750 mg, about 3775 mg, about 3800mg, about 3825 mg, about 3850 mg, about 3875 mg, about 3900 mg, about3925 mg, about 3950 mg, about 3975 mg, about 4000 mg, about 4025 mg,about 4050 mg, about 4075 mg, about 4100 mg, about 4125 mg, about 4150mg, about 4175 mg, about 4200 mg, about 4225 mg, about 4250 mg, about4275 mg, about 4300 mg, about 4325 mg, about 4350 mg, about 4375 mg,about 4400 mg, about 4425 mg, about 4450 mg, about 4475 mg, about 4500mg, about 4525 mg, about 4550 mg, about 4575 mg, about 4600 mg, about4625 mg, about 4650 mg, about 4675 mg, about 4700 mg, about 4725 mg,about 4750 mg, about 4775 mg, about 4800 mg, about 4825 mg, about 4850mg, about 4875 mg, about 4900 mg, about 4925 mg, about 4950 mg, about4975 mg, about 5000 mg, about 5025 mg, about 5050 mg, about 5075 mg,about 5100 mg, about 5125 mg, about 5150 mg, about 5175 mg, about 5200mg, about 5225 mg, about 5250 mg, about 5275 mg, about 5300 mg, about5325 mg, about 5350 mg, about 5375 mg, about 5400 mg, about 5425 mg,about 5450 mg, about 5475 mg, about 5500 mg, about 5525 mg, about 5550mg, about 5575 mg, about 5600 mg, about 5625 mg, about 5650 mg, about5675 mg, about 5700 mg, about 5725 mg, about 5750 mg, about 5775 mg,about 5800 mg, about 5825 mg, about 5850 mg, about 5875 mg, about 5900mg, about 5925 mg, about 5950 mg, about 5975 mg, about 6000 mg, about6025 mg, about 6050 mg, about 6075 mg, about 6100 mg, about 6125 mg,about 6150 mg, about 6175 mg, about 6200 mg, about 6225 mg, about 6250mg, about 6275 mg, about 6300 mg, about 6325 mg, about 6350 mg, about6375 mg, about 6400 mg, about 6425 mg, about 6450 mg, about 6475 mg,about 6500 mg, about 6525 mg, about 6550 mg, about 6575 mg, about 6600mg, about 6625 mg, about 6650 mg, about 6675 mg, about 6700 mg, about6725 mg, about 6750 mg, about 6775 mg, about 6800 mg, about 6825 mg,about 6850 mg, about 6875 mg, about 6900 mg, about 6925 mg, about 6950mg, about 6975 mg, about 7000 mg, about 7025 mg, about 7050 mg, about7075 mg, about 7100 mg, about 7125 mg, about 7150 mg, about 7175 mg,about 7200 mg, about 7225 mg, about 7250 mg, about 7275 mg, about 7300mg, about 7325 mg, about 7350 mg, about 7375 mg, about 7400 mg, about7425 mg, about 7450 mg, about 7475 mg, about 7500 mg, about 7525 mg,about 7550 mg, about 7575 mg, about 7600 mg, about 7625 mg, about 7650mg, about 7675 mg, about 7700 mg, about 7725 mg, about 7750 mg, about7775 mg, about 7800 mg, about 7825 mg, about 7850 mg, about 7875 mg,about 7900 mg, about 7925 mg, about 7950 mg, about 7975 mg, about 8000mg, about 8025 mg, about 8050 mg, about 8075 mg, about 8100 mg, about8125 mg, about 8150 mg, about 8175 mg, about 8200 mg, about 8225 mg,about 8250 mg, about 8275 mg, about 8300 mg, about 8325 mg, about 8350mg, about 8375 mg, about 8400 mg, about 8425 mg, about 8450 mg, about8475 mg, about 8500 mg, about 8525 mg, about 8550 mg, about 8575 mg,about 8600 mg, about 8625 mg, about 8650 mg, about 8675 mg, about 8700mg, about 8725 mg, about 8750 mg, about 8775 mg, about 8800 mg, about8825 mg, about 8850 mg, about 8875 mg, about 8900 mg, about 8925 mg,about 8950 mg, about 8975 mg, about 9000 mg, about 9025 mg, about 9050mg, about 9075 mg, about 9100 mg, about 9125 mg, about 9150 mg, about9175 mg, about 9200 mg, about 9225 mg, about 9250 mg, about 9275 mg,about 9300 mg, about 9325 mg, about 9350 mg, about 9375 mg, about 9400mg, about 9425 mg, about 9450 mg, about 9475 mg, about 9500 mg, about9525 mg, about 9550 mg, about 9575 mg, about 9600 mg, about 9625 mg,about 9650 mg, about 9675 mg, about 9700 mg, about 9725 mg, about 9750mg, about 9775 mg, about 9800 mg, about 9825 mg, about 9850 mg, about9875 mg, about 9900 mg, about 9925 mg, about 9950 mg, about 9975 mg, orabout 10,000 mg.

In another embodiment, any of the methods disclosed herein are used intreatment or prevention of a subject or subjects that consume atraditional Western diet. In one embodiment, the methods of theinvention include a step of identifying a subject as a Western dietconsumer or prudent diet consumer and then treating the subject if thesubject is deemed a Western diet consumer. The term “Western diet”herein refers generally to a typical diet consisting of, by percentageof total calories, about 45% to about 50% carbohydrate, about 35% toabout 40% fat, and about 10% to about 15% protein. A Western diet mayalternately or additionally be characterized by relatively high intakesof red and processed meats, sweets, refined grains, and desserts, forexample more than 50%, more than 60% or more or 70% of total caloriescome from these sources.

In one embodiment, a composition for use in methods of the inventioncomprises eicosapentaenoic acid, or a pharmaceutically acceptable ester,derivative, conjugate or salt thereof, or mixtures of any of theforegoing, collectively referred to herein as “EPA.” The term“pharmaceutically acceptable” in the present context means that thesubstance in question does not produce unacceptable toxicity to thesubject or interaction with other components of the composition.

In one embodiment, the EPA comprises all-ciseicosa-5,8,11,14,17-pentaenoic acid. In another embodiment, the EPAcomprises an eicosapentaenoic acid ester. In another embodiment, the EPAcomprises a C₁-C₅ alkyl ester of eicosapentaenoic acid. In anotherembodiment, the EPA comprises eicosapentaenoic acid ethyl ester,eicosapentaenoic acid methyl ester, eicosapentaenoic acid propyl ester,or eicosapentaenoic acid butyl ester. In another embodiment, the EPAcomprises In one embodiment, the EPA comprises all-ciseicosa-5,8,11,14,17-pentaenoic acid ethyl ester.

In another embodiment, the EPA is in the form of ethyl-EPA, lithium EPA,mono-, di- or triglyceride EPA or any other ester or salt of EPA, or thefree acid form of EPA. The EPA may also be in the form of a2-substituted derivative or other derivative which slows down its rateof oxidation but does not otherwise change its biological action to anysubstantial degree.

In another embodiment, EPA is present in a composition useful inaccordance with methods of the invention in an amount of about 50 mg toabout 5000 mg, about 75 mg to about 2500 mg, or about 100 mg to about1000 mg, for example about 75 mg, about 100 mg, about 125 mg, about 150mg, about 175 mg, about 200 mg, about 225 mg, about 250 mg, about 275mg, about 300 mg, about 325 mg, about 350 mg, about 375 mg, about 400mg, about 425 mg, about 450 mg, about 475 mg, about 500 mg, about 525mg, about 550 mg, about 575 mg, about 600 mg, about 625 mg, about 650mg, about 675 mg, about 700 mg, about 725 mg, about 750 mg, about 775mg, about 800 mg, about 825 mg, about 850 mg, about 875 mg, about 900mg, about 925 mg, about 950 mg, about 975 mg, about 1000 mg, about 1025mg, about 1050 mg, about 1075 mg, about 1100 mg, about 1025 mg, about1050 mg, about 1075 mg, about 1200 mg, about 1225 mg, about 1250 mg,about 1275 mg, about 1300 mg, about 1325 mg, about 1350 mg, about 1375mg, about 1400 mg, about 1425 mg, about 1450 mg, about 1475 mg, about1500 mg, about 1525 mg, about 1550 mg, about 1575 mg, about 1600 mg,about 1625 mg, about 1650 mg, about 1675 mg, about 1700 mg, about 1725mg, about 1750 mg, about 1775 mg, about 1800 mg, about 1825 mg, about1850 mg, about 1875 mg, about 1900 mg, about 1925 mg, about 1950 mg,about 1975 mg, about 2000 mg, about 2025 mg, about 2050 mg, about 2075mg, about 2100 mg, about 2125 mg, about 2150 mg, about 2175 mg, about2200 mg, about 2225 mg, about 2250 mg, about 2275 mg, about 2300 mg,about 2325 mg, about 2350 mg, about 2375 mg, about 2400 mg, about 2425mg, about 2450 mg, about 2475 mg, about 2500 mg, about 2525 mg, about2550 mg, about 2575 mg, about 2600 mg, about 2625 mg, about 2650 mg,about 2675 mg, about 2700 mg, about 2725 mg, about 2750 mg, about 2775mg, about 2800 mg, about 2825 mg, about 2850 mg, about 2875 mg, about2900 mg, about 2925 mg, about 2950 mg, about 2975 mg, about 3000 mg,about 3025 mg, about 3050 mg, about 3075 mg, about 3100 mg, about 3125mg, about 3150 mg, about 3175 mg, about 3200 mg, about 3225 mg, about3250 mg, about 3275 mg, about 3300 mg, about 3325 mg, about 3350 mg,about 3375 mg, about 3400 mg, about 3425 mg, about 3450 mg, about 3475mg, about 3500 mg, about 3525 mg, about 3550 mg, about 3575 mg, about3600 mg, about 3625 mg, about 3650 mg, about 3675 mg, about 3700 mg,about 3725 mg, about 3750 mg, about 3775 mg, about 3800 mg, about 3825mg, about 3850 mg, about 3875 mg, about 3900 mg, about 3925 mg, about3950 mg, about 3975 mg, about 4000 mg, about 4025 mg, about 4050 mg,about 4075 mg, about 4100 mg, about 4125 mg, about 4150 mg, about 4175mg, about 4200 mg, about 4225 mg, about 4250 mg, about 4275 mg, about4300 mg, about 4325 mg, about 4350 mg, about 4375 mg, about 4400 mg,about 4425 mg, about 4450 mg, about 4475 mg, about 4500 mg, about 4525mg, about 4550 mg, about 4575 mg, about 4600 mg, about 4625 mg, about4650 mg, about 4675 mg, about 4700 mg, about 4725 mg, about 4750 mg,about 4775 mg, about 4800 mg, about 4825 mg, about 4850 mg, about 4875mg, about 4900 mg, about 4925 mg, about 4950 mg, about 4975 mg, or about5000 mg

In another embodiment, a composition useful in accordance with theinvention contains not more than about 10%, not more than about 9%, notmore than about 8%, not more than about 7%, not more than about 6%, notmore than about 5%, not more than about 4%, not more than about 3%, notmore than about 2%, not more than about 1%, or not more than about 0.5%,by weight of all fatty acids (and/or derivatives thereof) present,docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), if any. In another embodiment, a compositionof the invention contains substantially no docosahexaenoic acid. Instill another embodiment, a composition useful in the present inventioncontains no docosahexaenoic acid and/or derivative thereof.

In another embodiment, EPA comprises at least 70%, at least 80%, atleast 90%, at least 95%, at least 96%, at least 97%, at least 98%, atleast 99%, or 100%, by weight of all fatty acids (and/or derivativesthereof) present, in a composition that is useful in methods of thepresent invention.

In one embodiment, a composition of the invention comprises ultra-pureEPA. The term “ultra-pure” as used herein with respect to EPA refers toa composition comprising at least 95%, by weight of all fatty acids(and/or derivatives thereof) present, EPA (as the term “EPA” is definedand exemplified herein). Ultra-pure EPA comprises at least 96%, byweight of all fatty acids (and/or derivatives thereof) present, EPA, atleast 97%, by weight of all fatty acids (and/or derivatives thereof)present, EPA, or at least 98%, by weight of all fatty acids (and/orderivatives thereof) present, EPA, wherein the EPA is any form of EPA asset forth herein.

In another embodiment, a composition useful in accordance with methodsof the invention contains less than 10%, less than 9%, less than 8%,less than 7%, less than 6%, less than 5%, less than 4%, less than 3%,less than 2%, less than 1%, less than 0.5% or less than 0.25%, by weightof all fatty acids (and/or derivatives thereof) present, of any fattyacid other than EPA. Illustrative examples of a “fatty acid other thanEPA” include linolenic acid (LA), arachidonic acid (AA), docosahexaenoicacid (DHA), alpha-linolenic acid (ALA), stearidonic acid (STA),eicosatrienoic acid (ETA) and/or docosapentaenoic acid (DPA). In anotherembodiment, a composition useful in accordance with methods of theinvention contains about 0.1% to about 4%, about 0.5% to about 3%, orabout 1% to about 2%, by weight of all fatty acids (and/or derivativesthereof) present, other than EPA and/or DHA.

In another embodiment, a composition useful in accordance with theinvention has one or more of the following features: (a)eicosapentaenoic acid ethyl ester represents at least about 96%, atleast about 97%, or at least about 98%, by weight of all fatty acids(and/or derivatives thereof) present, in the composition; (b) thecomposition contains not more than about 4%, not more than about 3%, ornot more than about 2%, by weight of all fatty acids (and/or derivativesthereof) present, other than eicosapentaenoic acid ethyl ester; (c) thecomposition contains not more than about 0.6%, not more than about 0.5%,or not more than about 0.4%, by weight of all fatty acids (and/orderivatives thereof) present, of any individual fatty acid other thaneicosapentaenoic acid ethyl ester; (d) the composition has a refractiveindex (20° C.) of about 1 to about 2, about 1.2 to about 1.8 or about1.4 to about 1.5; (e) the composition has a specific gravity (20° C.) ofabout 0.8 to about 1.0, about 0.85 to about 0.95 or about 0.9 to about0.92; (e) the composition contains not more than about 20 ppm, not morethan about 15 ppm or not more than about 10 ppm heavy metals, (f) thecomposition contains not more than about 5 ppm, not more than about 4ppm, not more than about 3 ppm, or not more than about 2 ppm arsenic,and/or (g) the composition has a peroxide value of not more than about 5meq/kg, not more than about 4 meq/kg, not more than about 3 meq/kg, ornot more than about 2 meq/kg.

In another embodiment, a composition useful in accordance with theinvention comprises, consists of or consists essentially of at least95%, by weight of all fatty acids (and/or derivatives thereof) present,ethyl eicosapentaenoate (EPA-E), about 0.2% to about 0.5%, by weight ofall fatty acids (and/or derivatives thereof) present, ethyloctadecatetraenoate (ODTA-E), about 0.05% to about 0.25%, by weight ofall fatty acids (and/or derivatives thereof) present, ethylnonadecapentaenoate (NDPA-E), about 0.2% to about 0.45%, by weight ofall fatty acids (and/or derivatives thereof) present, ethyl arachidonate(AA-E), about 0.3% to about 0.5%, by weight of all fatty acids (and/orderivatives thereof) present, ethyl eicosatetraenoate (ETA-E), and about0.05% to about 0.32%, by weight of all fatty acids (and/or derivativesthereof) present, ethyl heneicosapentaenoate (HPA-E). In anotherembodiment, the composition is present in a capsule shell.

In another embodiment, compositions useful in accordance with theinvention comprise, consist essential of, or consist of at least 95%,96% or 97%, by weight of all fatty acids (and/or derivatives thereof)present, ethyl eicosapentaenoate, about 0.2% to about 0.5% by weightethyl octadecatetraenoate, about 0.05% to about 0.25%, by weight of allfatty acids (and/or derivatives thereof) present, ethylnonadecapentaenoate, about 0.2% to about 0.45%, by weight of all fattyacids (and/or derivatives thereof) present, ethyl arachidonate, about0.3% to about 0.5%, by weight of all fatty acids (and/or derivativesthereof) present, ethyl eicosatetraenoate, and about 0.05% to about0.32%, by weight of all fatty acids (and/or derivatives thereof)present, ethyl heneicosapentaenoate. Optionally, the compositioncontains not more than about 0.06%, about 0.05%, or about 0.04%, byweight of all fatty acids (and/or derivatives thereof) present, DHA orderivative thereof such as ethyl-DHA. In one embodiment the compositioncontains substantially no or no amount of DHA or derivative thereof suchas ethyl-DHA. The composition further optionally comprises one or moreantioxidants (e.g. tocopherol) or other impurities in an amount of notmore than about 0.5% or not more than 0.05%. In another embodiment, thecomposition comprises about 0.05% to about 0.4%, for example about 0.2%by weight tocopherol. In another embodiment, about 500 mg to about 1 gof the composition is provided in a capsule shell.

In another embodiment, compositions useful in accordance with theinvention comprise, consist essential of, or consist of at least 96%, byweight of all fatty acids (and/or derivatives thereof) present, ethyleicosapentaenoate, about 0.22% to about 0.4%, by weight of all fattyacids (and/or derivatives thereof) present, ethyl octadecatetraenoate,about 0.075% to about 0.20%, by weight of all fatty acids (and/orderivatives thereof) present, ethyl nonadecapentaenoate, about 0.25% toabout 0.40%, by weight of all fatty acids (and/or derivatives thereof)present, ethyl arachidonate, about 0.3% to about 0.4%, by weight of allfatty acids (and/or derivatives thereof) present, ethyleicosatetraenoate and about 0.075% to about 0.25%, by weight of allfatty acids (and/or derivatives thereof) present, ethylheneicosapentaenoate. Optionally, the composition contains not more thanabout 0.06%, about 0.05%, or about 0.04%, by weight of all fatty acids(and/or derivatives thereof) present, DHA or derivative thereof such asethyl-DHA. In one embodiment the composition contains substantially noor no amount of DHA or derivative thereof such as ethyl-DHA. Thecomposition further optionally comprises one or more antioxidants (e.g.tocopherol) or other impurities in an amount of not more than about 0.5%or not more than 0.05%. In another embodiment, the composition comprisesabout 0.05% to about 0.4%, for example about 0.2% by weight tocopherol.In another embodiment, the invention provides a dosage form comprisingabout 500 mg to about 1 g of the foregoing composition in a capsuleshell. In one embodiment, the dosage form is a gel or liquid capsule andis packaged in blister packages of about 1 to about 20 capsules persheet.

In another embodiment, compositions useful in accordance with theinvention comprise, consist essential of, or consist of at least 96%,97% or 98%, by weight of all fatty acids (and/or derivatives thereof)present, ethyl eicosapentaenoate, about 0.25% to about 0.38%, by weightof all fatty acids (and/or derivatives thereof) present, ethyloctadecatetraenoate, about 0.10% to about 0.15%, by weight of all fattyacids (and/or derivatives thereof) present, ethyl nonadecapentaenoate,about 0.25% to about 0.35%, by weight of all fatty acids (and/orderivatives thereof) present, ethyl arachidonate, about 0.31% to about0.38%, by weight of all fatty acids (and/or derivatives thereof)present, ethyl eicosatetraenoate, and about 0.08% to about 0.20%, byweight of all fatty acids (and/or derivatives thereof) present, ethylheneicosapentaenoate. Optionally, the composition contains not more thanabout 0.06%, about 0.05%, or about 0.04%, by weight of all fatty acids(and/or derivatives thereof) present, DHA or derivative thereof such asethyl-DHA. In one embodiment the composition contains substantially noor no amount of DHA or derivative thereof such as ethyl-DHA. Thecomposition further optionally comprises one or more antioxidants (e.g.tocopherol) or other impurities in an amount of not more than about 0.5%or not more than 0.05%. In another embodiment, the composition comprisesabout 0.05% to about 0.4%, for example about 0.2% by weight tocopherol.In another embodiment, the invention provides a dosage form comprisingabout 500 mg to about 1 g of the foregoing composition in a capsuleshell.

In another embodiment, a composition as described herein is administeredto a subject once or twice per day. In another embodiment, 1, 2, 3 or 4capsules, each containing about 1 g of a composition as describedherein, are administered to a subject daily. In another embodiment, 1 or2 capsules, each containing about 1 g of a composition as describedherein, are administered to the subject in the morning, for examplebetween about 5 am and about 11 am, and 1 or 2 capsules, each containingabout 1 g of a composition as described herein, are administered to thesubject in the evening, for example between about 5 pm and about 11 pm.

In one embodiment, a subject being treated in accordance with methods ofthe invention is not otherwise on lipid-altering therapy, for examplestatin, fibrate, niacin and/or ezetimibe therapy.

In another embodiment, compositions useful in accordance with methods ofthe invention are orally deliverable. The terms “orally deliverable” or“oral administration” herein include any form of delivery of atherapeutic agent or a composition thereof to a subject wherein theagent or composition is placed in the mouth of the subject, whether ornot the agent or composition is swallowed. Thus “oral administration”includes buccal and sublingual as well as esophageal administration. Inone embodiment, the composition is present in a capsule, for example asoft gelatin capsule.

A composition for use in accordance with the invention can be formulatedas one or more dosage units. The terms “dose unit” and “dosage unit”herein refer to a portion of a pharmaceutical composition that containsan amount of a therapeutic agent suitable for a single administration toprovide a therapeutic effect. Such dosage units may be administered oneto a plurality (i.e. 1 to about 10, 1 to 8, 1 to 6, 1 to 4 or 1 to 2) oftimes per day, or as many times as needed to elicit a therapeuticresponse.

In another embodiment, the invention provides use of any compositiondescribed herein for treating moderate to severe hypertriglyceridemia ina subject in need thereof, comprising: providing a subject having afasting baseline triglyceride level of 500 mg/dl to about 1500 mg/dl andadministering to the subject a pharmaceutical composition as describedherein. In one embodiment, the composition comprises about 1 g to about4 g of eicosapentaenoic acid ethyl ester, wherein the compositioncontains substantially no docosahexaenoic acid or derivative thereof. Insome embodiments, cholesterol domain formation in membranes of thesubject is reduced or prevented. In some embodiments, the subjectexperiences no substantial increase, or no increase, or a reduction, inLDL-C levels.

In another embodiment, the invention provides use of any compositiondescribed herein for treating moderate to severe hypertriglyceridemia ina subject in need thereof, comprising: providing a subject on statintherapy and having a fasting baseline triglyceride level of about 200mg/dl to 499 mg/dl and administering to the subject a pharmaceuticalcomposition as described herein. In one embodiment, the compositioncomprises about 1 g to about 4 g of eicosapentaenoic acid ethyl ester,wherein the composition contains substantially no docosahexaenoic acid.In some embodiments, cholesterol domain formation in membranes of thesubject is reduced or prevented. In some embodiments, the subjectexperiences no substantial increase, or no increase, or a reduction, inLDL-C levels.

In one embodiment, compositions of the invention, upon storage in aclosed container maintained at room temperature, refrigerated (e.g.about 5 to about 5-10° C.) temperature, or frozen for a period of about1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, or 12 months, exhibit at least about90%, at least about 95%, at least about 97.5%, or at least about 99% ofthe active ingredient(s) originally present therein.

In one embodiment, the present disclosure provides a method of treatingor preventing atherosclerosis in a subject having a high baseline serumglucose level, the method comprising administering to the subject apharmaceutical composition comprising eicosapentaenoic acid or aderivative thereof. In some embodiments, the pharmaceutical compositioncomprises at least 80%, at least 90%, at least 95%, or at least 96%, byweight of all fatty acids (and/or derivatives thereof) present,eicosapentaenoic acid or a derivative thereof. In some embodiments, thepharmaceutical composition comprises no docosahexaenoic acid or estersthereof. In some embodiments, the reduction or prevention occurs by afree radical chain-breaking mechanism. In some embodiments, the methodfurther comprises determining a baseline oxidized sdLDL level in thesubject prior to administering to the subject the pharmaceuticalcomposition. In some embodiments, the method further comprisesdetermining a second oxidized sdLDL level in the subject afteradministering to the subject a pharmaceutical composition comprisingeicosapentaenoic acid or a derivative thereof, wherein the secondoxidized sdLDL level is not greater than, not significantly greaterthan, or lower than the baseline oxidized sdLDL level and/or wherein thesecond oxidized sdLDL level is not greater than, not significantlygreater than, or lower than the baseline oxidized sdLDL level incomparison to a second subject who has not received the pharmaceuticalcomposition. In some embodiments, the method further comprisesadministering atorvastatin and/or o-hydroxyatorvastatin to the subject.In some embodiments, the second oxidized sdLDL level is not greaterthan, not significantly greater than, or lower than the baselineoxidized sdLDL level in comparison to a second subject who has receivedthe atorvastatin and/or the o-hydroxyatorvastatin but not thepharmaceutical composition. In some embodiments, the second oxidizedsdLDL level is not greater than, not significantly greater than, orlower than the baseline oxidized sdLDL level in comparison to a secondsubject who has received the pharmaceutical composition but not theo-hydroxyatorvastatin. In some embodiments, the subject has a baselinetriglyceride level of at least 500 mg/dL. In some embodiments, thesubject has a baseline triglyceride level of about 200 mg/dL to 499mg/dL. In some embodiments, the subject is on statin therapy, optionallystable statin therapy. In some embodiments, the subject is diabetic. Insome embodiments, the high baseline serum glucose level is a fastingserum glucose level of at least 126 mg/dL. In some embodiments, the highbaseline serum glucose level is a fasting serum glucose level of atleast 160 mg/dL. In some embodiments, the high baseline serum glucoselevel is a non-fasting serum glucose level of at least 200 mg/dL.

In one embodiment, the invention provides use of a composition asdescribed herein in manufacture of a medicament for treatment of any ofa cardiovascular-related disease. In another embodiment, the subject isdiabetic.

In one embodiment, a composition as set forth herein is packagedtogether with instructions for using the composition to treat acardiovascular disorder.

EXAMPLES Example 1

A multi-center, placebo-controlled randomized, double-blind, 12-weekstudy with an open-label extension was performed to evaluate theefficacy and safety of AMR101 in patients with fasting triglyceridelevels ≥500 mg/dL. The primary objective of the study was to determinethe efficacy of AMR101 2 g daily and 4 g daily, compared to placebo, inlowering fasting TG levels in patients with fasting TG levels ≥500 mg/dLand ≤1500 mg/dL (≥5.65 mmol/L and ≤16.94 mmol/L).

The secondary objectives of this study were the following:

-   1. To determine the safety and tolerability of AMR101 2 g daily and    4 g daily;-   2. To determine the effect of AMR101 on lipid and apolipoprotein    profiles;-   3. To determine the effect of AMR101 on low-density lipoprotein    (LDL) particle number and size;-   4. To determine the effect of AMR101 on oxidized LDL;-   5. To determine the effect of AMR101 on fasting plasma glucose (FPG)    and hemoglobin A_(1c) (HbA_(1c));-   6. To determine the effect of AMR101 on insulin resistance;-   7. To determine the effect of AMR101 on high-sensitivity C-reactive    protein (hsCRP);-   8. To determine the effects of AMR101 2 g daily and 4 g daily on the    incorporation of fatty acids into red blood cell membranes and into    plasma phospholipids;-   9. To explore the relationship between baseline fasting TG levels    and the reduction in fasting TG levels; and-   10. To explore the relationship between an increase in red blood    cell membrane eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) concentrations and the    reduction in fasting TG levels.

The population for this study was men and women (women of childbearingpotential needed to be on contraception or practice abstinence) >18years of age with a body mass index ≤45 kg/m² who were not onlipid-altering therapy or were not currently on lipid-altering therapy.Patients currently on statin therapy (with or without ezetimibe) wereevaluated by the investigator as to whether this therapy could be safelydiscontinued at screening, or if it should have been continued. Ifstatin therapy (with or without ezetimibe) was to be continued, dose(s)must have been stable for ≥4 weeks prior to randomization. Patientstaking non-statin, lipid-altering medications (niacin >200 mg/day,fibrates, fish oil, other products containing omega-3 fatty acids, orother herbal products or dietary supplements with potentiallipid-altering effects), either alone or in combination with statintherapy (with or without ezetimibe), must have been able to safelydiscontinue non-statin, lipid-altering therapy at screening.

Approximately 240 patients were randomized at approximately 50 centersin North America, South America, Central America, Europe, India, andSouth Africa. The study was a 58- to 60-week, Phase 3, multi-centerstudy consisting of 3 study periods: (1) a 6- to 8-week screening periodthat included a diet and lifestyle stabilization and washout period anda TG qualifying period; (2) a 12-week, double-blind, randomized,placebo-controlled treatment period; and (3) a 40-week, open-label,extension period.

During the screening period and double-blind treatment period, allvisits were within ±3 days of the scheduled time. During the open-labelextension period, all visits were within ±7 days of the scheduled time.The screening period included a 4- or 6-week diet and lifestylestabilization period and washout period followed by a 2-week TGqualifying period.

The screening visit (Visit 1) occurred for all patients at either 6weeks (for patients not on lipid-altering therapy at screening or forpatients who did not need to discontinue their current lipid-alteringtherapy) or 8 weeks (for patients who required washout of their currentlipid-altering therapy at screening) before randomization, as follows:

Patients who did not require a washout: The screening visit will occurat Visit 1 (Week −6). Eligible patients entered a 4-week diet andlifestyle stabilization period. At the screening visit, all patientsreceived counseling regarding the importance of the National CholesterolEducation Program (NCEP) Therapeutic Lifestyle Changes (TLC) diet andreceived instructions on how to follow this diet. Patients who requireda washout: The screening visit occurred at Visit 1 (Week −8). Eligiblepatients began a 6-week washout period at the screening visit. Patientsreceived counseling regarding the NCEP TLC diet and receivedinstructions on how to follow this diet. Site personnel contactedpatients who did not qualify for participation based on screeninglaboratory test results to instruct them to resume their priorlipid-altering medications.

At the end of the 4-week diet and lifestyle stabilization period or the6-week diet and stabilization and washout period, eligible patientsentered the 2-week TG qualifying period and had their fasting TG levelmeasured at Visit 2 (Week −2) and Visit 3 (Week −1). Eligible patientsmust have had an average fasting TG level ≥500 mg/dL and ≥1500 mg/dL(≥5.65 mmol/L and ≤16.94 mmol/L) to enter the 12-week double-blindtreatment period. The TG level for qualification was based on theaverage (arithmetic mean) of the Visit 2 (Week −2) and Visit 3 (Week −1)values. If a patient's average TG level from Visit 2 and Visit 3 felloutside the required range for entry into the study, an additionalsample for fasting TG measurement was collected 1 week later at Visit3.1. If a third sample was collected at Visit 3.1, entry into the studywas based on the average (arithmetic mean) of the values from Visit 3and Visit 3.1.

After confirmation of qualifying fasting TG values, eligible patientsentered a 12-week, randomized, double-blind treatment period. At Visit 4(Week 0), patients were randomly assigned to one of the followingtreatment groups:

-   -   AMR101 2 g daily,    -   AMR101 4 g daily, or    -   Placebo.

During the double-blind treatment period, patients returned to the siteat Visit 5 (Week 4), Visit 6 (Week 11), and Visit 7 (Week 12) forefficacy and safety evaluations.

Patients who completed the 12-week double-blind treatment period wereeligible to enter a 40-week, open-label, extension period at Visit 7(Week 12). All patients received open-label AMR101 4 g daily. From Visit8 (Week 16) until the end of the study, changes to the lipid-alteringregimen were permitted (e.g., initiating or raising the dose of statinor adding non-statin, lipid-altering medications to the regimen), asguided by standard practice and prescribing information. After Visit 8(Week 16), patients returned to the site every 12 weeks until the lastvisit at Visit 11 (Week 52).

Eligible patients were randomly assigned at Visit 4 (Week 0) to orallyreceive AMR101 2 g daily, AMR101 4 g daily, or placebo for the 12-weekdouble-blind treatment period. AMR101 was provided in 1 g liquid-filled,oblong, gelatin capsules. The matching placebo capsule was filled withlight liquid paraffin and contained 0 g of AMR101. During thedouble-blind treatment period, patients took 2 capsules (AMR101 ormatching placebo) in the morning and 2 in the evening for a total of 4capsules per day. Patients in the AMR101 2 g/day treatment groupreceived 1 AMR101 1 g capsule and 1 matching placebo capsule in themorning and in the evening. Patients in the AMR101 4 g/day treatmentgroup received 2 AMR101 1 g capsules in the morning and evening.

Patients in the placebo group received 2 matching placebo capsules inthe morning and evening. During the extension period, patients receivedopen-label AMR101 4 g daily. Patients took 2 AMR101 1 g capsules in themorning and 2 in the evening.

The primary efficacy variable for the double-blind treatment period waspercent change in TG from baseline to Week 12 endpoint. The secondaryefficacy variables for the double-blind treatment period included thefollowing:

-   -   Percent changes in total cholesterol (TC), high-density        lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), calculated low-density        lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), calculated non-high-density        lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C), and very low-density        lipoprotein cholesterol (VLDL-C) from baseline to Week 12        endpoint;    -   Percent change in very low-density lipoprotein TG from baseline        to Week 12;    -   Percent changes in apolipoprotein A-I (apo A-I), apolipoprotein        B (apo B), and apo A-I/apo B ratio from baseline to Week 12;    -   Percent changes in lipoprotein(a) from baseline to Week 12        (selected sites only);    -   Percent changes in LDL particle number and size, measured by        nuclear magnetic resonance, from baseline to Week 12 (selected        sites only);    -   Percent change in remnant-like particle cholesterol from        baseline to Week 12 (selected sites only);    -   Percent change in oxidized LDL from baseline to Week 12        (selected sites only);    -   Changes in FPG and HbA_(1c) from baseline to Week 12;    -   Change in insulin resistance, as assessed by the homeostasis        model index insulin resistance, from baseline to Week 12;    -   Percent change in lipoprotein associated phospholipase A2 from        baseline to Week 12 (selected sites only);    -   Change in intracellular adhesion molecule-1 from baseline to        Week 12 (selected sites only);    -   Change in interleukin-6 from baseline to Week 12 (selected sites        only);    -   Change in plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 from baseline to        Week 12 (selected sites only);    -   Change in hsCRP from baseline to Week 12 (selected sites only);    -   Change in serum phospholipid EPA content from baseline to Week        12;    -   Change in red blood cell membrane EPA content from baseline to        Week 12; and    -   Change in serum phospholipid and red blood cell membrane content        in the following fatty acids from baseline to Week 12:        docosapentaenoic acid, docosahexaenoic acid, arachidonic acid,        palmitic acid, stearic acid, and oleic acid.

The efficacy variable for the open-label extension period was percentchange in fasting TG from extension baseline to end of treatment. Safetyassessments included adverse events, clinical laboratory measurements(chemistry, hematology, and urinalysis), 12-lead electrocardiograms(ECGs), vital signs, and physical examinations

For TG, TC, HDL-C, calculated LDL-C, calculated non-HDL-C, and VLDL-C,baseline was defined as the average of Visit 4 (Week 0) and thepreceding lipid qualifying visit (either Visit 3 [Week −1] or if itoccurs, Visit 3.1) measurements. Baseline for all other efficacyparameters was the Visit 4 (Week 0) measurement.

For TC, HDL-C, calculated LDL-C, calculated non-HDL-C, and VLDL-C, Week12 endpoint was defined as the average of Visit 6 (Week 11) and Visit 7(Week 12) measurements. Week 12 endpoint for all other efficacyparameters was the Visit 7 (Week 12) measurement.

The primary efficacy analysis was performed using a 2-way analysis ofcovariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a factor and baseline TGvalue as a covariate. The least-squares mean, standard error, and2-tailed 95% confidence interval for each treatment group and for eachcomparison was estimated. The same 2-way ANCOVA model was used for theanalysis of secondary efficacy variables.

The primary analysis was repeated for the per-protocol population toconfirm the robustness of the results for the intent-to-treatpopulation.

The primary efficacy variable was the percent change in fasting TGlevels from baseline to Week 12. A sample size of 69 completed patientsper treatment group was expected to provide 90% power to detect adifference of 30% between AMR101 and placebo in percent change frombaseline in fasting TG levels, assuming a standard deviation of 45% inTG measurements and a significance level of p<0.01. To accommodate a 15%drop-out rate from randomization to completion of the double-blindtreatment period, a total of 240 randomized patients was planned (80patients per treatment group).

Example 2

A multi-center, placebo-controlled, randomized, double-blind, 12-weekstudy was performed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of >96% E-EPA inpatients with fasting triglyceride levels ≥200 mg/dl and <500 mg/dldespite statin therapy (the mean of two qualifying entry values neededto be ≥185 mg/dl and at least one of the values needed to be ≥200mg/dl). The primary objective of the study was to determine the efficacyof ≥96% E-EPA 2 g daily and 4 g daily, compared to placebo, in loweringfasting TG levels in patients with high risk for cardiovascular diseaseand with fasting TG levels ≥200 mg/dl and <500 mg/dl, despite treatmentto LDL-C goal on statin therapy.

The secondary objectives of this study were the following:

-   -   1. To determine the safety and tolerability of >96% E-EPA 2 g        daily and 4 g daily;    -   2. To determine the effect of >96% E-EPA on lipid and        apolipoprotein profiles including total cholesterol (TC),        non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C), low        density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), high density        lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), and very high density        lipoprotein cholesterol (VHDL-C);    -   3. To determine the effect of >96% E-EPA on lipoprotein        associated phospholipase A₂ (Lp-PLA₂) from baseline to week 12;    -   4. To determine the effect of >96% E-EPA on low-density        lipoprotein (LDL) particle number and size;    -   5. To determine the effect of >96% E-EPA on oxidized LDL;    -   6. To determine the effect of >96% E-EPA on fasting plasma        glucose (FPG) and hemoglobin A_(1c) (HbA_(1c));    -   7. To determine the effect of >96% E-EPA on insulin resistance;    -   8. To determine the effect of >96% E-EPA on high-sensitivity        C-reactive protein (hsCRP);    -   9. To determine the effects of >96% E-EPA 2 g daily and 4 g        daily on the incorporation of fatty acids into red blood cell        membranes and into plasma phospholipids;    -   10. To explore the relationship between baseline fasting TG        levels and the reduction in fasting TG levels; and    -   11. To explore the relationship between changes of fatty acid        concentrations in plasma and red blood cell membranes, and the        reduction in fasting TG levels.

The population for this study was men and women >18 years of age with abody mass index ≤45 kg/m² with fasting TG levels greater than or equalto 200 mg/dl and less than 500 mg/dl and on a stable does of statintherapy (with or without ezetimibe). The statin was atorvostatin,rosuvastatin or simvastatin. The dose of statin must have been stablefor ≥4 weeks prior to the LDL-C/TG baseline qualifying measurement forrandomization. The statin dose was optimized such that the patients areat their LDL-C goal at the LDL-C/TG baseline qualifying measurements.The same statin at the same dose was continued until the study ended.

Patients taking any additional non-statin, lipid-altering medications(niacin >200 mg/day, fibrates, fish oil, other products containingomega-3 fatty acids, or other herbal products or dietary supplementswith potential lipid-altering effects), either alone or in combinationwith statin therapy (with or without ezetimibe), must have been able tosafely discontinue non-statin, lipid-altering therapy at screening.

Patients at high risk for CVD, i.e., patients with clinical coronaryheart disease (CHD) or clinical CHD risk equivalents (10-year risk >20%)as defined in the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) AdultTreatment Panel III (ATP III) Guidelines were eligible to participate inthis study. Those included patients with any of the following criteria:(1) Known CVD, either clinical coronary heart disease (CHD), symptomaticcarotid artery disease (CAD), peripheral artery disease (PAD) orabdominal aortic aneurism; or (2) Diabetes Mellitus (Type 1 or 2).

Approximately 702 patients were randomized at approximately 80 centersin the U.S. The study was a 18- to 20-week, Phase 3, multi-center studyconsisting of 2 study periods: (1) A 6- to 8-week screening period thatincluded a diet and lifestyle stabilization, a non-statin lipid-alteringtreatment washout, and an LDL-C and TG qualifying period and (2) A12-week, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled treatment period.

During the screening period and double-blind treatment period, allvisits were within ±3 days of the scheduled time. All patients continuedto take the statin product (with or without ezetimibe) at the same dosethey were taking at screening throughout their participation in thestudy.

The 6- to 8-week screening period included a diet and lifestylestabilization, a non-statin lipid-altering treatment washout, and anLDL-C and TG qualifying period. The screening visit (Visit 1) occurredfor all patients at either 6 weeks (for patients on stable statintherapy [with or without ezetimibe] at screening) or 8 weeks (forpatients who will require washout of their current non-statinlipid-altering therapy at screening) before randomization, as follows:

-   -   Patients who did not require a washout: The screening visit        occurred at Visit 1 (Week −6). Eligible patients entered a        4-week diet and lifestyle stabilization period. At the screening        visit, all patients received counseling regarding the importance        of the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Therapeutic        Lifestyle Changes (TLC) diet and received basic instructions on        how to follow this diet.    -   Patients who required a washout: The screening visit occurred at        Visit 1 (Week −8). Eligible patients began a 6-week washout        period at the screening visit (i.e. 6 weeks washout before the        first LDL-C/TG qualifying visit). Patients received counseling        regarding the NCEP TLC diet and received basic instructions on        how to follow this diet. Site personnel contacted patients who        did not qualify for participation based on screening laboratory        test results to instruct them to resume their prior        lipid-altering medications.

At the end of the 4-week diet and lifestyle stabilization period or the6-week diet and stabilization and washout period, eligible patientsentered the 2-week LDL-C and TG qualifying period and had their fastingLDL-C and TG levels measured at Visit 2 (Week −2) and Visit 3 (Week −1).Eligible patients must have had an average fasting LDL-C level ≥40 mg/dLand <100 mg/dL and an average fasting TG level ≥200 mg/dL and <500 mg/dLto enter the 12-week double-blind treatment period. The LDL-C and TGlevels for qualification were based on the average (arithmetic mean) ofthe Visit 2 (Week −2) and Visit 3 (Week −1) values. If a patient'saverage LDL-C and/or TG levels from Visit 2 and Visit 3 fell outside therequired range for entry into the study, an additional fasting lipidprofile was collected 1 week later at Visit 3.1. If a third sample wascollected at Visit 3.1, entry into the study was based on the average(arithmetic mean) of the values from Visit 3 and Visit 3.1.

After confirmation of qualifying fasting LDL-C and TG values, eligiblepatients entered a 12-week, randomized, double-blind treatment period.At Visit 4 (Week 0), patients were randomly assigned to 1 of thefollowing treatment groups:

>96% E-EPA 2 g daily,

>96% E-EPA 4 g daily, or

Placebo.

226 to 234 patients per treatment group were randomized in this study.Stratification was by type of statin (atorvastatin, rosuvastatin orsimvastatin), the presence of diabetes, and gender.

During the double-blind treatment period, patients returned to the siteat Visit 5 (Week 4), Visit 6 (Week 11), and Visit 7 (Week 12) forefficacy and safety evaluations.

Eligible patients were randomly assigned at Visit 4 (Week 0) to receiveorally >96% E-EPA 2 g daily, >96% E-EPA 4 g daily, or placebo.

>96% E-EPA was provided in 1 g liquid-filled, oblong, gelatin capsules.The matching placebo capsule was filled with light liquid paraffin andcontained 0 g of >96% E-EPA. >96% E-EPA capsules were to be taken withfood (i.e. with or at the end of a meal).

During the double-blind treatment period, patients were to take 2capsules (>96% E-EPA or matching placebo) in the morning and 2 capsulesin the evening for a total of 4 capsules per day.

-   -   Patients in the >96% E-EPA 2 g/day treatment group received        1 >96% E-EPA 1 g capsule and 1 matching placebo capsule in the        morning and in the evening.    -   Patients in the >96% E-EPA 4 g/day treatment group received        2 >96% E-EPA 1 g capsules in the morning and evening.

Patients in the placebo group received 2 matching placebo capsules inthe morning and evening.

The primary efficacy variable for the double-blind treatment period waspercent change in TG from baseline to Week 12 endpoint. The secondaryefficacy variables for the double-blind treatment period included thefollowing:

-   -   Percent changes in total cholesterol (TC), high-density        lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), LDL-C, calculated non-HDL-C,        and very low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (VLDL-C) from        baseline to Week 12 endpoint;    -   Percent change in very low-density lipoprotein TG from baseline        to Week 12;    -   Percent changes in apolipoprotein A-I (apo A-I), apolipoprotein        B (apo B), and apo A-I/apo B ratio from baseline to Week 12;    -   Percent changes in lipoprotein(a) from baseline to Week 12;    -   Percent changes in LDL particle number and size, measured by        nuclear magnetic resonance, from baseline to Week 12;    -   Percent change in remnant-like particle cholesterol from        baseline to Week 12;    -   Percent change in oxidized LDL from baseline to Week 12;    -   Changes in FPG and HbA_(1c) from baseline to Week 12;    -   Change in insulin resistance, as assessed by the homeostasis        model index insulin resistance, from baseline to Week 12;    -   Percent change in lipoprotein associated phospholipase A₂        (Lp-PLA₂) from baseline to Week 12;    -   Change in intracellular adhesion molecule-1 from baseline to        Week 12;    -   Change in interleukin-2 from baseline to Week 12;    -   Change in plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 from baseline to        Week 12. Note: this parameter will only be collected at sites        with proper storage conditions;    -   Change in hsCRP from baseline to Week 12; and    -   Change in plasma concentration and red blood cell membrane        content of fatty acid from baseline to Week 12 including EPA,        docosapentaenoic acid (DPA), docosahexaenoic acid (DHA),        arachidonic acid (AA), dihomo-γ-linolenic acid (DGLA), the ratio        of EPA/AA, ratio of oleic acid/stearic acid (OA/SA), and the        ratio of total omega-3 acids over total omega-6 acids.

Safety assessments included adverse events, clinical laboratorymeasurements (chemistry, hematology, and urinalysis), 12-leadelectrocardiograms (ECGs), vital signs, and physical examinations.

For TG, TC, HDL-C, LDL-C, calculated non-HDL-C, and VLDL-C, baseline wasdefined as the average of Visit 4 (Week 0) and the preceding lipidqualifying visit (either Visit 3 [Week −1] or if it occurs, Visit 3.1)measurements. Baseline for all other efficacy parameters was the Visit 4(Week 0) measurement.

For TG, TC, HDL-C, LDL-C, calculated non-HDL-C, and VLDL-C, Week 12endpoint was defined as the average of Visit 6 (Week 11) and Visit 7(Week 12) measurements.

Week 12 endpoint for all other efficacy parameters were the Visit 7(Week 12) measurement.

The primary efficacy analysis was performed using a 2-way analysis ofcovariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a factor and baseline TGvalue as a covariate. The least-squares mean, standard error, and2-tailed 95% confidence interval for each treatment group and for eachcomparison were estimated. The same 2-way ANCOVA model was used for theanalysis of secondary efficacy variables.

The primary analysis was repeated for the per-protocol population toconfirm the robustness of the results for the intent-to-treatpopulation.

Non-inferiority tests for percent change from baseline in LDL-C wereperformed between >96% E-EPA doses and placebo using a non-inferioritymargin of 6% and a significant level at 0.05.

For the following key secondary efficacy parameters, treatment groupswere compared using Dunnett's test to control the Type 1 error rate: TC,LDL-C, HDL-C, non-HDL-C, VLDL-C, Lp-PLA₂, and apo B. For the remainingsecondary efficacy parameters, Dunnett's test was be used and the ANCOVAoutput were considered descriptive.

The evaluation of safety was based primarily on the frequency of adverseevents, clinical laboratory assessments, vital signs, and 12-lead ECGs.The primary efficacy variable is the percent change in fasting TG levelsfrom baseline to Week 12. A sample size of 194 completed patients pertreatment group provided 90.6% power to detect a difference of 15%between >96% E-EPA and placebo in percent change from baseline infasting TG levels, assuming a standard deviation of 45% in TGmeasurements and a significance level of p<0.05.

Previous data on fasting LDL-C show a difference in percent change frombaseline of 2.2%, with a standard deviation of 15%, between study drugand placebo. A sample size of 194 completed patients per treatment groupprovided 80% power to demonstrate non-inferiority (p<0.05, one-sided) ofthe LDL-C response between >96% E-EPA 4 g daily and placebo, within a 6%margin. To accommodate a 10% drop-out rate from randomization tocompletion of the double-blind treatment period, a total of 648randomized patients was planned (216 patients per treatment group); 702subjects were randomized, as further described below.

Results

Of the 702 randomized subjects, 687 were in the intent-to-treat (“ITT”)population as follows:

-   -   Ultra-pure EPA, 4 g/day: 226 subjects    -   Ultra-pure EPA, 2 g/day: 234 subjects    -   Placebo: 227 subjects

Lipids were extracted from plasma and red blood cell (“RBC”) suspensionsand converted into fatty acid methyl esters for analysis using astandard validated gas chromatography/flame ionization detection method.Fatty acid parameters were compared between EPA treatment groups andplacebo using an ANCOVA model with treatment, gender, type of statintherapy, and presence of diabetes as factors, and the baseline parametervalue as a covariate. LSMs, SEs, and 2-tailed 95% confidence intervalsfor each treatment group and for each comparison were determined.

Baseline characteristics of the three ITT groups were comparable, with61.4% of the ITT subjects being male, 96.3% being white, having a meanage of 61.4 years, a weight of 95.7 kg and a BMI of 32.9 kg/m². ITTsubjects with incomplete fatty acid data at baseline and/or at 12 weekswere excluded from the analyses described below.

Example 3

An experiment was conducted to test EPA in model membranes enriched withPUFAs and cholesterol at levels that reproduce disease or high CV-riskconditions (i.e., hypercholesterolemia).

The effects of EPA on lipid peroxide (LOOH) formation were examined at acholesterol-to-phospholipid (C/P) mole ratio of 0.6:1. Levels of lipidhydroperoxides were also measured in cholesterol-enriched membraneprepared in the absence of EPA as a control.

1,2-Dilinoleoyl-3-sn-phosphatidylcholine (DLPC) was obtained from AvantiPolar Lipids (Alabaster, Ala.) and stored in chloroform (25 mg/ml) at−80° C. until use. Cholesterol obtained and stored in chloroform (10mg/ml) at −20° C. CHOD-iodide color reagent (stock) was preparedaccording to a procedure modified from El-Saadani et al. (El-Saadani M,Esterbauer H, El-Sayed M, Goher M, Nassar A Y, Jurgens G. Aspectrophotometric assay for lipid peroxides in serum lipoproteins usingcommercially available reagent. J. Lipid. Res. 1989; 30:627-30)consisted of 0.2 M K₂HPO₄, 0.12 M KI, 0.15 mM NaN₃, 10 μM ammoniummolybdate, and 0.1 g/L benzalkonium chloride. Prior to experimental use,the CHOD reagent was activated by adding 24 μMethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA), 20 μM butylated hydroxytoluene(BHT), and 0.2% Triton X-100. The EPA and lipids were added in a ratioof 1:30 during membrane sample preparation to ensure full incorporationinto the lipid bilayers.

Membrane samples consisting of DLPC±cholesterol were prepared asfollows. Component lipids (in chloroform) were transferred to 13×100 mmtest tubes and shell-dried under a steady stream of nitrogen gas whilevortex mixing. The lipid was co-dried with EPA.

Residual solvent was removed by drying for a minimum of 3 h undervacuum. After desiccation, each membrane sample was resuspended indiffraction buffer (0.5 mM HEPES, 154 mM NaCl, pH 7.3) to yield a finalphospholipid concentration of 1.0 mg/mL. Multilamellar vesicles (MLV)were formed by vortex mixing for 3 minutes at ambient temperature.Bangham A D, Standish M M, Watkins J C. Diffusion of univalent ionsacross the lamellae of swollen phospholipids. J. Mol. Biol. 1965;13:238-52. Immediately after initial MLV preparation, aliquots of eachmembrane sample will be taken for baseline (0 h) peroxidation analyses.

All lipid membrane samples were subjected to time-dependent autoxidationby incubating at 37° C. in an uncovered, shaking water bath for 72hours. Small aliquots of each sample were removed at 24 h intervals andcombined with 1.0 mL of active CHOD-iodide color reagent. To ensurespectrophotometric readings within the optimum absorbance range, samplevolumes taken for measurement of lipid peroxide formation were adjustedfor length of peroxidation and range between 100 and 10 μL. Test sampleswere immediately covered with foil and incubated at room temperaturefor >4 h in the absence of light. Absorbances were measured against aCHOD blank at 365 nm using a Beckman DU-640 spectrophotometer.

The CHOD colorimetric assay is based on the oxidation of iodide (I⁻) bylipid hydroperoxides (LOOH) and proceeds according to the followingreaction scheme:

LOOH+2H⁺+3I⁻→LOH+H₂O+I₃ ⁻

The quantity of triiodide anion (I₃ ⁻) liberated in this reaction isdirectly proportional to the amount of lipid hydroperoxides present inthe membrane sample. The molar absorptivity value (ε) of I₃ ⁻ is2.46×10⁴M⁻¹·cm⁻¹ at 365 nm.

Cholesterol domain peak intensity was calculated from multiple smallangle x-ray diffraction measurements, which are directly proportional todomain levels. After exposure to autoxidation as described above,vehicle-treated controls displayed a cholesterol domain peak intensityof 77.6±58.5, corresponding to an increase in LOOH formation from 89±1μM to 6616±250 μM (p<0.001). EPA-treated membranes reduced LOOH levelsby greater than 90% (728±30 μM) compared to untreated controls(p<0.001).

This example demonstrates that EPA inhibits cholesterol crystallinedomain formation in a manner related to its potent antioxidant effectsin PUFA-enriched model membranes. These data suggest that EPA blocksmembrane lipid oxidation and structural reorganization through freeradical chain-breaking mechanisms.

Example 4

An experiment was conducted to test the ability of EPA to interfere withthe effects of high glucose on membrane lipid peroxidation andorganization in vesicles enriched with PUFAs.

At elevated levels, the aldose sugar glucose produces non-enzymaticchemical modifications to membrane proteins and phospholipids, leadingto advanced glycation endproducts (AGEs) and cell injury. Oxidativestress and AGEs have been implicated in both the microvascular andmacrovascular complications of diabetes and other metabolic disorders.In membranes enriched with polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA),hyperglycemia promotes the formation of free radicals and cholesterolcrystalline domains associated with atherosclerosis. The non-enzymaticeffects of glucose on cholesterol crystalline domain formation wereshown to be enhanced under conditions of high cholesterol and could notbe reproduced by mannitol. Oxidative damage to PUFAs with glucose is ofparticular interest given its role in the propagation of free radicalsduring vascular injury and insulin resistance. In addition to cellularmembranes, oxidation of PUFAs in low-density lipoproteins (LDL)contributes to endothelial dysfunction, inflammation, andatherosclerotic foam cell formation.

-   -   1,2-Dilinoleoyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphocholine (DLPC) and monomeric        cholesterol (isolated from ovine wool) were purchased from        Avanti Polar Lipids (Alabaster, Ala.) and solubilized at 25 and        10 mg/mL, respectively. EPA, α-linolenic acid (ALA; 18:3, n-3)        was purchased from Sigma-Aldrich (Saint Louis, Mo.) and        solubilized in ethanol to 1 mM under nitrogen atmosphere.        Vitamin E (α-tocopherol) was also purchased from Sigma-Aldrich        and prepared in ethanol at 1.0 mM (ε=3.06×10⁴ M⁻¹ cm⁻¹ at 294        nm) just prior to experimental use. Atorvastatin ortho- (o-)        hydroxy (active) metabolite was purchased from Toronto Research        Chemicals (North York, Ontario, Canada) and solubilized in        methanol to 1.0 mM. All test compounds were further diluted in        ethanol or aqueous buffer as needed. Glucose was prepared in        saline buffer (0.5 mM HEPES, 154 mM NaCl, pH 7.3) at 11.0 mM        (200 mg/dL).

CHOD-iodide color reagent (stock) was prepared, with slightmodification, as described by from El-Saadani et al. (J. Lipid Res.,vol. 30, pages 627-630 (1989)) and consisted of 0.2 M K₂HPO₄, 0.12 M KI,0.15 mM NaN₃, 10 μM ammonium molybdate, and 0.1 g/L benzalkoniumchloride. Prior to experimental use, the CHOD reagent was activated byadding 24 μM ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA), 20 μM butylatedhydroxytoluene (BHT), and 0.2% Triton X-100.

Multilamellar vesicles (MLVs) were prepared as binary mixtures of DLPC(1.0 or 2.5 mg total phospholipid per sample) and cholesterol at a fixedcholesterol-to-phospholipid (C/P) mole ratio of 0.6:1. Component lipids(in chloroform) were transferred to 13×100 mm borosilicate culture tubesand combined with vehicle (ethanol) or an equal volume of fatty acid,vitamin E, or ATM stock solutions, each adjusted to achieve desiredtreatment concentrations. Samples were shell-dried under nitrogen gasand placed under vacuum for 1 h to remove residual solvent. Afterdesiccation, each sample was resuspended in 1.0 mL glucose-containingsaline to yield final phospholipid concentrations of 1.0 or 2.5 mg/mL(for lipid peroxidation or x-ray diffraction analysis, respectively).Lipid suspensions were then vortexed for 3 min at ambient temperature toform MLVs.

All MLV samples were subjected to time-dependent autoxidation byincubating at 37° C. in an uncovered, shaking water bath. This methodallows lipid peroxidation to occur gradually without requiring the useof exogenous initiators. Small aliquots (5-100 μL) of each sample wereremoved, immediately following MLV preparation (0 hour) and afterexposing samples to oxidative conditions for 72 or 96 hour, and combinedwith 1.0 mL of activated CHOD-iodide color reagent. Aliquot volume wasreduced with each successive time point to ensure thatspectrophotometric readings were within the optimal adsorption range.Test samples were covered and incubated in darkness at room temperaturefor at least 4 hr. Sample absorbances were then measured against a CHODblank at 365 nm using a Beckman DU-640 spectrophotometer. The CHODcolorimetric assay is based on the oxidation of iodide (I⁻) by lipidhydroperoxide (LOOH) to form triiodide (I₃ ⁻), the quantity of which isdirectly proportional to the amount of LOOH present in the lipid sample.The molar absorptivity (ε) of I₃ ⁻ is 2.46×10⁴M⁻¹ cm⁻¹ at 365 nm.

The membrane structural effects of glucose and the various compoundsexamined in this study were measured at 0, 72, and 96 hour intervals.Membrane lipid vesicles were oriented for x-ray diffraction analysis asdescribed by others (e.g., Herbette et al., Biophys. J., vol. 20(2),pages 245-272 (1977)). Briefly, a 100 μL aliquot (containing 250 μg MLV)was aspirated from each sample and transferred to a Lucite®sedimentation cell fitted with an aluminum foil substrate upon which agiven sample could be collected by centrifugation. Samples were thenloaded into a Sorvall AH-629 swinging bucket rotor (DuPont Corp.,Wilmington, Del.) and centrifuged at 35,000 g, 5° C., for 90 min.

After centrifugal orientation, sample supernatants were aspirated andaluminum foil substrates, each supporting a single membrane pellet, wereremoved from the sedimentation cells. Sample pellets were dried for 5-10min at ambient conditions, mounted onto curved glass supports, andplaced in hermetically-sealed, brass or glass containers (for immediateanalysis or temporary storage, respectively). All x-ray diffractionexperiments were conducted at 20° C., 74% relative humidity. The latterwas established by exposing membrane samples to saturated solutions ofL-(+) tartaric acid (K₂C₄H₄O₆.½H₂O). Samples were incubated at theseconditions for at least 1 hour prior to experimental analysis.

Oriented membrane samples were aligned at grazing incidence with respectto a collimated, mono-chromatic CuK_(α) x-ray beam (K_(α1) and K_(α2)unresolved; λ=1.54 Å) produced by a Rigaku Rotaflex RU-200,high-brilliance microfocus generator (Rigaku-MSC, The Woodlands, Tex.)as previously described (Mason et al., Biophys. J., vol. 55(4), pages769-778 (1989)). Diffraction data were collected on a one-dimensional,position-sensitive electron detector (Hecus X-ray Systems, Graz,Austria) at a sample-to-detector distance of 150 mm. Detectorcalibration was performed by the manufacturer and verified usingcrystalline cholesterol monohydrate.

The d-space for any given membrane multibilayer is a measurement of theunit cell periodicity of the membrane lipid bilayer (e.g., the distancefrom the center of one lipid bilayer to the next including surfacehydration), and is calculated from Bragg's Law, hλ=2d sin θ, where h isthe diffraction order, λ is the wavelength of the x-ray radiation (1.54Å), d is the membrane lipid bilayer unit cell periodicity, and θ is theBragg angle equal to one-half the angle between the incident beam andscattered beam.

The presence of cholesterol domains in a given membrane sample resultsin the production of distinct Bragg (diffraction) peaks having singularperiodicity values of 34 and 17 Å (typically referred to as first- andsecond-order cholesterol domain peaks). Under the specific temperatureand relative humidity conditions established for these experiments, thesecond-order, 17 Å cholesterol domain peak was well-delineated fromother, neighboring cholesterol and phospholipid diffraction peaks andwas thus used to quantitate relative cholesterol domain peak intensity.Routines written in Origin 8.6 (OriginLab Corporation, Northampton,Mass.) were used to determine total peak area (associated with alldiffraction peaks in a given pattern) against which the second-ordercholesterol domain peak was normalized.

Effects of EPA and Vitamin E on Glucose-induced Lipid Peroxidation

The effects of hyperglycemia (200 mg/dL) on LOOH formation in lipidvesicles enriched with PUFAs and cholesterol and prepared in the absence(vehicle only) or presence of EPA or vitamin E (each at a 1:30drug-to-phospholipid mole ratio) were measured. The concentration ofglucose selected was consistent with previous experimental studies ofhyperglycemia under controlled laboratory conditions or observed inwell-defined animal models of Type II diabetes following a glucosechallenge. As shown in FIG. 1, glucose significantly increased LOOHformation in a time-dependent manner as compared to vehicle treatmentalone. Values in FIG. 1 are mean±S.D. (N=6). EPA inhibited theperoxidative effects of glucose by 88% and 86% at 72 and 96 hours,respectively, which was highly significant (p<0.001) as compared toglucose treatment alone. LOOH levels measured in samples treated withEPA were also significantly lower (at the 72- and 96-hour time points)as compared to non-glucose-treated controls. Overall ANOVA-0 hour data:p=0.6655, F=0.4185; 72 hour data: p<0.0001, F=428.72; 96 hour data:p<0.0001, F=322.01.

EPA was also tested at 1.0 and 5.0 μM and found to inhibit membrane LOOHformation in a dose-dependent manner, as shown in FIG. 2. Values in FIG.2 are mean±S.D. (N=6-8) and represent % difference between treatment andglucose-treated controls. These concentrations are similar to thosemeasured in the plasma of patients with prescribed levels of EPA.Overall ANOVA: p<0.0001, F=99.900.

Vitamin E was also examined in this assay at the samedrug-to-phospholipid mole ratio used for testing the basic antioxidanteffects of EPA. As shown in FIG. 3, EPA significantly inhibited LOOHformation at the 72- and 96-hour time points. Values in FIG. 3 aremean±S.D. (N=3). By contrast, vitamin E had no significant effect onlipid peroxidation under identical conditions. Overall ANOVA-0 hourdata: p=0.0073, F=12.474; 72 hour data: p=0.0204, F=7.986; 96 hour data:p=0.0008, F=29.764.

Effects of EPA and Vitamin E on Glucose- and Peroxidation-InducedChanges in Membrane Lipid Structural Organization

Lipid peroxidation is highly disruptive to the structural organizationof biological membranes and has been shown, in previous studies by Jacobet al. (J. Biol. Chem., vol. 280, pages 39380-39387 (2005)) and Mason etal. (J. Biol. Chem., vol. 281(1), pages 9337-9345 (2006)), to contributedirectly to the formation of cholesterol crystalline domains. Glucosehas also been reported to promote similar changes in membrane structuralorganization by increasing lipid peroxidation (Self-Medlin et al.,Biochim. Biophys. Acta, vol. 1788(6), pages 1398-1403 (2009)). In thisstudy, we used small angle x-ray diffraction to characterize thestructural properties of model membranes treated with glucose (200mg/dL) and prepared in the absence or presence of vitamin E or EPA (eachat 1:30 drug-to-phospholipid mole ratio), before and after exposure tooxidative conditions (FIG. 4). At the start of this experiment, vitaminE and EPA were observed to have no appreciable effect on membranestructure as compared to control samples (FIG. 4, left column).Scattering data collected from each membrane preparation yielded up tofour diffraction orders having an average unit cell periodicity(d-space) of 51.5 Å, and consistent with a homogenously-distributed,lipid bilayer phase. Following exposure to oxidative conditions for 72hours, additional peaks, with an average d-space value of 34 Å andconsistent with a cholesterol crystalline domain phase, were observed incontrol and vitamin E-treated membrane samples (FIG. 4, middle column,highlighted peaks). At 96 hours, cholesterol domains peaks were observedin all experimental samples; however, these peaks weredisproportionately greater in control and vitamin E-treated samples(FIG. 4, right column, highlighted peaks).

Quantitative assessment of cholesterol domain peak intensity (expressedas the quotient of cholesterol- to total lipid-peak area) indicated thatvitamin E had no significant effect on cholesterol domain formation ascompared to control at any experimental time point (FIG. 5). Values inFIG. 5 are mean±S.D. (N=3). In contrast, EPA inhibited relativecholesterol domain peak intensity by more than 99% at the 96-hour timepoint, as compared to either vehicle or vitamin E treatments. OverallANOVA: p=0.0075, F=8.849.

Separate and Combined Effects of EPA and ATM on Glucose-Induced MembraneLipid Peroxidation

ATM has been shown in previous studies by Teissier et al. (Circ. Res.,vol. 95(12), pages 1174-1182 (2004)) and Mason et al. (Am. J. Cardiol.,vol. 96(5A), pages 11F-23F (2005)) to have potent antioxidantproperties, as observed in human low density lipoprotein as well asmodel liposomes. The antioxidant effects of ATM were re-examined,separately and in combination with EPA (each at 1.0 μM), in membranelipid vesicles treated with glucose at 200 mg/dL and exposed tooxidative conditions for 96 hours. Both EPA and ATM were observed tohave separate and potent antioxidant effects under these conditions;however, their combination was even more effective, decreasing LOOHformation by >60% (p<0.001) as compared to either treatment alone (FIG.6). Values in FIG. 6 are mean±S.D. (N=6) and represent % differencebetween treatment and glucose-treated controls. *p<0.001 versusglucose-treated control (Student-Newman-Keuls multiple comparisons test;overall ANOVA: p<0.0001, F=111.69. ^(§)p<0.001 versus separate EPA orATM treatments (Student-Newman-Keuls multiple comparisons test; overallANOVA: p<0.0001, F=26.635).

These data demonstrate that EPA significantly inhibits glucose-inducedlipid peroxidation and cholesterol crystalline domain formation in modelmembrane lipid vesicles. Without wishing to be bound by theory, it ispossible that these antioxidant effects are due at least in part to theability of EPA to quench reactive oxygen species (ROS) associated withthe membrane lipid bilayer, thereby preserving normal membrane structureand organization. Following intercalation into the membrane lipidbilayer, the conjugated double bonds associated with EPA may facilitateelectron stabilization mechanisms that interfere with free radicalpropagation (for example, as depicted in FIG. 7). The effects of EPAcould not be reproduced with vitamin E, a natural scavengingantioxidant. These findings indicate a potentially preferredintercalation of the EPA molecule into the membrane where it can trapfree radicals. The absence of activity for vitamin E under theseconditions may be due to its limited lipophilicity and scavengingpotential, as previously observed by Mason et al. (J. Biol. Chem., vol.281(14), pages 9337-9345 (2006)) in membranes enriched with cholesterol.Vitamin E was also unable to interfere with cholesterol crystallinedomain development with hyperglycemia. Finally, the antioxidant effectsof EPA were enhanced in the presence of ATM which, unlike vitamin E, hasbeen shown by Self-Medlin et al. (Biochim. Biophys. Acta, vol. 1788(6),pages 1398-1403 (2009)) and Mason et al. (J. Biol. Chem., vol. 281(14),pages 9337-9345 (2006)) to have potent free radical scavengingproperties and high lipophilicity that reduces the formation ofcholesterol crystalline domains following oxidative stress or exposureto hyperglycemic conditions. Mason et al. (J. Biol. Chem., vol. 281(14),pages 9337-9345 (2006)) and Aviram et al. (Atherosclerosis, vol. 138(2),pages 271-280 (1998)) have attributed the chain-breaking antioxidantmechanism of ATM to its phenoxy moiety. Clinical support for anantioxidant benefit with atorvastatin has also been reported fromprospective trials by Tsimikas et al. (Circulation, vol. 110(11), pages1406-1412 (2004)) and Shishehbor et al. (Circulation, vol. 108(4), pages426-431 (2003)).

At high levels, glucose promoted the formation of LOOH, prominentintermediates of peroxidative reactions that have been shown by Girottiet al. (J. Lipid Res., vol. 39(8), pages 1529-1542 (1998)) to lead tochanges in the organization of membrane lipid components. Lipidperoxidation is well-known to induce changes in membrane fluidity,increased membrane permeability, and changes in membrane proteinactivity. Oxidative modification of PUFAs is also known to cause amarked reduction in membrane d-space associated with interdigitation ofthe phospholipid acyl chain terminal methyl segments. These alterationsin the intermolecular packing characteristics of membrane phospholipidspromote the displacement of cholesterol into discrete domains (d-spaceof 34 Å) within the phospholipid bilayer environment. Cholesterolcrystalline domains have been shown by Ruocco et al. (Biophys. J., vol.46, pages 695-707 (1984)) to be induced in model membranes by increasingmembrane cholesterol to very high levels (>50 mol %). Similar changes incholesterol domain formation have been observed in models ofatherosclerosis, including in model macrophage foam cells(Kellner-Weibel et al., Arterioscler. Thromb. Vasc. Biol., vol. 19(8),pages 1891-1898 (1999)), in rabbit or rat thoracic mesenteric orpericardium membranes (Abela et al., Clin. Cardiol., vol. 28(9), pages413-420 (2005)), and rabbit smooth muscle cell plasma membranes (Tulenkoet al., J. Lipid Res., vol. 39, pages 947-956 (1998)). The formation ofthese domains in membranes prepared at constant cholesterol levels butexposed to glucose and glucose-induced lipid peroxidation has also beenobserved by Self-Medlin et al. (Biochim. Biophys. Acta, vol. 1788(6),pages 1398-1403 (2009)). Thus, agents that slow or block the formationof cholesterol into discrete domains and crystals may interfere withmechanisms of atherogenesis associated with hyperglycemia withoutreductions in cholesterol levels.

As a reducing monosaccharide, glucose is known to be susceptible toreaction at its anomeric carbon with singlet oxygen or other radicalinitiators. This redox reaction can generate glucose radicals or otherreactive oxygen species that have a pro-oxidant effect in biologicalmembranes. Several reaction mechanisms are believed to be responsiblefor the formation of glycoxidation and lipoxidation products resultingfrom the reaction of glucose radicals with proteins or lipids to formsugar-amine adducts. The presence of cholesterol in the membrane alsocontributes to rates of LOOH formation, allowing more efficient radicalpenetration and propagation through the bilayer. The steroid nucleus ofcholesterol has been explained to induce an ordering effect on adjacentphospholipid molecules, thus reducing the intermolecular distancebetween adjacent PUFA chains of the lipids and facilitating the exchangeof free radicals within the hydrocarbon core. Previous studies bySelf-Medlin et al. (Biochim. Biophys. Acta, vol. 1788(6), pages1398-1403 (2009)) have demonstrated a cholesterol-dependent increase inLOOH formation, which was enhanced by glucose treatment, in similarmodel membrane preparations. Others including Bertelsen et al.(Diabetologia, vol 44(5), pages 605-613 (2001)) and Cohen et al. (Am. J.Physiol. Endocrin. Metabol., vol. 285(6), pages E1151-1160 (2003)) havesuggested that even minor physico-chemical modifications to the cellmembrane may lead to the disruption of cholesterol-enriched membranedomains that are critical to many cellular processes (e.g., caveolae)leading to loss in insulin receptor activity and endothelial nitricoxide synthase (eNOS) function.

Glucose-mediated oxidative stress is known to contribute to inflammatorypathways associated with diabetes and atherosclerosis pathophysiology.Glucose, obesity, and oxidative stress reduce intracellular antioxidantdefense mechanisms while activating inflammatory responses fromtranscription factors and kinases, such as c-Jun N-terminal kinase(JNK), protein kinase C (PKC), and inhibitor of kappa B kinase-β (IKKβ).Some inflammatory pathways, such as activation of IKKβ, have a causativerole in the deleterious effects of hyperglycemia on endothelial cellfunction. Hyperglycemia also stimulates NF-kB, which in turn promotesthe overexpression of NADPH, a primary source of cellular superoxide.Overproduction of superoxide, accompanied by increased nitric oxidegeneration, leads to formation of the highly reactive peroxynitritemolecule. Agents with antioxidant activity at the cellular levelincluding, for example, statins, glitazones, and angiotensin convertingenzyme (ACE) inhibitors, have been shown to be beneficial in improvinginsulin resistance.

The present Example demonstrates surprisingly that EPA ameliorates theeffects of hyperglycemia, likely due to its potent antioxidantproperties. In clinical studies performed by others, compositionsincluding EPA reduced CAD-related events in hypercholesterolemicpatients receiving statin treatment. In addition to reductions intriglycerides, treatment with highly purified EPA was associated withsignificant reductions in levels of oxidized LDL, Lp-PLA₂, and hsCRP ascompared to placebo. These antioxidant effects are consistent with thepresently disclosed findings, which demonstrate EPA to be a potent anddirect scavenger of free radicals. ROS and related oxidative damage havebeen implicated in the pathogenesis of various human chronic diseases.Due to its multiple conjugated double bonds, EPA has higher singletoxygen quenching ability compared to vitamin E. EPA is expected to fullyincorporate into the membrane bilayer, where it can exercise maximumfree radical scavenging effects as shown in this study.

The antioxidant effects of EPA were enhanced in combination with theactive metabolite of atorvastatin. According to primary pharmacokineticstudies, atorvastatin (parent) is extensively metabolized by hepaticcytochrome P450 to yield a number of active metabolites, which togetherreportedly account for approximately 70% of circulating HMG-CoAreductase inhibitory activity. This is in contrast to other statins likepravastatin and rosuvastatin that are not metabolized into activemetabolites. Beyond their enzymatic effects on serum LDL-C levels, theactive metabolites of atorvastatin may provide benefit by interferingwith oxidative stress pathways. In a small study by Shishehbor et al.(Circulation, vol. 108(4), pages 426-431 (2003)) designed to evaluatethe effects of atorvastatin therapy on markers of protein oxidation andinflammation, atorvastatin was found to significantly reduce circulatinglevels of chlorotyrosine, nitrotyrosine, and dityrosine, all of whichact as surrogate markers for specific oxidative pathways upregulated inthe atheroma. Interestingly, these effects were observed at a relativelylow treatment dose (10 mg, administered for just 12 weeks) and were moresignificant than reductions in other inflammatory markers, includingC-reactive protein. In a larger study by Tsimikas et al. (Circulation,vol. 110(11), pages 1406-1412 (2004)) involving 2,341 patients,treatment with a high dose of atorvastatin (80 mg) for 16 weeks caused asignificant reduction in levels of oxidized lipids associated with allapoB100-containing lipid particles.

The ability of EPA to interfere with oxidative stress under conditionsof hyperglycemia has important clinical implications. Levels of oxidizedlipid, measured using monoclonal antibodies against oxLDL, have beenshown by Ehara et al. (Circulation, vol. 103(15), pages 1955-1960(2001)) to correlate with the severity of acute coronary syndromes andplaque instability. A more recent longitudinal investigation of 634patients found that patients with baseline levels of thiobarbituric acidreactive substances (“TBARS”) in the highest quartile had significantlyincreased relative risk for major vascular events and procedures (Walteret al., J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., vol. 44(10), pages 1996-2002 (2004)). Thepredictive effect of TBARS was observed in a multivariate model adjustedfor inflammatory markers (C-reactive protein, sICAM-1, IL-6) and otherrisk factors (age, LDL-C, high density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C),total cholesterol, triglycerides, BMI, and blood pressure). Theseanalyses indicated that TBARS had an independent effect on majorvascular events and procedures. Similar predictive value was observedfor LOOH in these same subjects in a follow-up study (Walter et al., J.Am. Coll. Cardiol., vol. 51(12), pages 1196-1202 (2008)). More recently,EPA treatment was associated with significant reductions intriglycerides along with reduced levels of markers of inflammationincluding hsCRP, Lp-PLA₂ and oxidized LDL, as compared to placebo, byBallantyne et al. (Am. J. Cardiol., vol. 110(7), pages 984-992 (2012))and Bays et al. (Am. J. Cardiovasc. Drugs, vol. 13(1), pages 37-46(2013); Am. J. Cardiol., vol. 108(5), pages 682-690 (2011)).

In sum, pronounced changes in membrane lipid organization were observedwith hyperglycemia, including the formation of cholesterol crystallinedomains that correlate with an increase in lipid hydroperoxide (LOOH)formation (an intermediate product of oxidative lipid damage). Treatmentof membranes with EPA, but not vitamin E, inhibited changes in membranestructure possibly due to potent chain-breaking antioxidant actions ofthe EPA molecules.

Example 5

An experiment was conducted to compare the ability of EPA to preventlipid hydroperoxide formation in model membranes treated with glucose totwo other 20-carbon fatty acids: eicosanoic acid (“EA,” also referred toas arachidic acid, C20:0) and eicosatrienoic acid (“ETE,” C20:3, n-3).All MLV samples were subjected to time-dependent autoxidation byincubating at 37° C. in an uncovered, shaking water bath. This methodallows lipid peroxidation to occur gradually without requiring the useof exogenous initiators. Small aliquots (5-100 μL) of each sample wereremoved, immediately following MLV preparation (0 hr) and after exposingsamples to oxidative conditions for 72 or 96 hr, and combined with 1.0mL of activated CHOD-iodide color reagent. Aliquot volume was reducedwith each successive time point to ensure that spectrophotometricreadings were within the optimal adsorption range. Test samples werecovered and incubated in darkness at room temperature for at least 4 hr.Sample absorbances were then measured against a CHOD blank at 365 nmusing a Beckman DU-640 spectrophotometer. The CHOD colorimetric assay isbased on the oxidation of iodide (I⁻) by lipid hydroperoxide (LOOH) toform triiodide (I₃ ⁻), the quantity of which is directly proportional tothe amount of LOOH present in the lipid sample. The molar absorptivity(c) of I₃ ⁻is 2.46×10⁴M⁻¹ cm⁻¹ at 365 nm.

As shown in FIG. 8, model membranes treated with EPA had significantlyless LOOH formation compared to model membranes treated with vehicleonly (control), with glucose only, with glucose and EA, or with glucoseand ETE. Values in FIG. 8 are mean±S.D. (N=6). After 96 hours (FIG. 9),the differences between EPA-treated model membranes and model membranestreated with vehicle only (control), with glucose only, with glucose andEA, or with glucose and ETE were even more pronounced. Values in FIG. 8are mean±S.D. (N=6). *p<0.001 versus vehicle-treated control; †p<0.001versus glucose-treated control; ^(§) p<0.001 versus EA; ^(¶)p<0.001versus ETE (Student-Newman-Keuls multiple comparisons test; overallANOVA: p<0.0001, F=148.57). *p<0.001 versus vehicle-treated control;^(†)p<0.001 versus glucose-treated control; ^(§) p<0.001 versus EA;^(¶)p<0.001 versus ETE (Student-Newman-Keuls multiple comparisons test;overall ANOVA: p<0.0001, F=248.73).

Example 6

An experiment to study the antioxidant effect of EPA in small dense LDL(“sdLDL”) was performed. EPA was purchased from Sigma-Aldrich (SaintLouis, Mo.) and solubilized in ethanol to 1 mM under nitrogenatmosphere. Vitamin E (α-tocopherol) was purchased from Sigma-Aldrichand prepared in ethanol at 1.0 mM (ε=3.06×10⁴ M¹ cm⁻¹ at 294 nm) justprior to experimental use. All test compounds were further diluted inethanol or aqueous buffer as needed.

Venous blood was collected from healthy volunteers into vacutainer tubescontaining sodium EDTA. Plasma was separated by centrifugation at 3000 gfor 25 min at 4° C. and adjusted to a density of 1.020 g/mL with KBr.Triglyceride-rich lipoproteins (TGRL) and LDL fractions were thenisolated bysequential centrifugation at 70,000 rpm at 4° C. in a BeckmanLE-80 ultracentrifuge using a Beckman 50.4Ti rotor (Beckman Coulter,Inc., Fullerton, Calif.). The TGRL fraction (with a relative density of<1.020) was aspirated from the top of the centrifugate and discarded,leaving an LDL-enriched infranate (with a relative density of 1.020 to1.063). The plasma LDL fraction was further fractionated into LDL1,LDL2, LDL3, and LDL4 (sdLDL) subfractions with relative densities of1.020 to 1.035, 1.035 to 1.050, 1.050 to 1.063, and 1.063 to 1.075,respectively. The sdLDL subfraction was retained for additionalexperimentation. Plasma and lipoprotein fractions were maintained at 4°C. and protected from excessive exposure to light. Prior to oxidationexperiments, EDTA was removed from the lipoprotein fraction using PD-10desalting columns (GE Healthcare, Piscataway N.J.). After equilibrationof the column with phosphate buffered saline (PBS), 2.5 mL of thelipoprotein fraction was loaded on the column and the flow-throughdiscarded. The lipoprotein was then eluted with 3 mL of PBS. The LDLfractions were further diluted with PBS to obtain a 100 μg/mL apoB100concentration.

LDL and sdLDL subfractions (0.6 mL each) were incubated with either 10μL vehicle (ethanol) or 10 μL drug stock solution for 30 min to 1 hr at37° C. Oxidation was initiated by the addition of 10 μM CuSO₄. After 2hr, 100 μL aliquots were removed from each subfraction and combined with1.0 mL thiobarbituric acid (0.5%), 10 μL trichloroacetic acid (5%), 10μL BHT (5 mg/mL in methanol), and 10 μL EDTA (5 mM). Sample aliquotswere incubated at 100° C. for 20 min and then assayed for the formationof thiobarbituric acid-reactive substances (TBARS), which have a molarabsorptivity (c) value of 1.56×10⁵M⁻¹ cm⁻¹ at 532 nm and are derivedprincipally from the reaction of thiobarbituric acid withmalondialdehyde (MDA), a reactive aldehyde produced by LDL oxidation.Sample TBARS concentrations were determined spectrophotometrically bymeasuring sample absorbances against a standard curve derived from thehydrolysis of 1,1,3,3-tetramethoxypropane.

Data are presented as mean±S.D. for (N) separate samples or treatmentgroups. Differences between groups were analyzed using the two-tailed,Student's t-test (for comparisons between only two groups) or ANOVAfollowed by Dunnett or Student-Newman-Keuls multiple comparisonspost-hoc analysis (for comparisons between three or more groups). Onlydifferences with probability values less than 0.05 were consideredsignificant.

EPA has been shown in previous studies to inhibit lipid oxidation inphospholipid vesicles following exposure to high glucose levels andautoxidation (unpublished results). In this study these analyses wereextended to human LDL and sdLDL fractions. As shown in FIG. 10, EPAinhibited sdLDL oxidation over a broad range of concentrations (1.0 μMto 10.0 These concentrations are similar to the level of unesterifiedEPA measured in the plasma of humans (C_(max):1.4 μg/mL, or ˜5 μM) withnormally prescribed levels (e.g., 4 g/day) of EPA. At the lowest dosetested (1.0 EPA reduced TBARS levels by 13% (p<0.001) compared tovehicle-treated controls; this inhibitory effect was dose-dependent andincreased to 57% (p<0.001) at 10.0 μM. The comparative effects ofvitamin E on sdLDL oxidation were also tested under identical conditions(FIG. 10). In contrast to EPA, vitamin E did not inhibit sdLDL oxidationexcept at the highest concentration (10.0 μM) where it reduced TBARSlevels by 26% (p<0.05). These data indicate different interactions ofthese lipophilic, chain-breaking antioxidants with respect to sdLDLoxidation. Values in FIG. 10 are mean±S.D. (N=4). *p<0.05 versus control(Dunnett multiple comparisons test; overall ANOVA: p=0.0039, F=4.616);^(†)p<0.0001 versus vitamin E treatment(s); ^(§) p<0.001 versus otherEPA treatments (Student-Newman-Keuls multiple comparisons test; overallANOVA: p<0.0001, F=764.91).

The antioxidant effects of EPA were further examined in unfractionatedLDL particles (FIG. 11). LDL was isolated from human plasma, treatedwith vehicle, vitamin E, or EPA over a broad range of concentrations(1.0 μM to 10.0 μM) and examined for changes in lipid oxidation rates.EPA was found to generally inhibit LDL oxidation; however, the effectswere less evident as compared to those observed for a similar number ofsdLDL particles. At each concentration tested, the reduction in TBARSlevels was several fold lower in the unfractionated LDL versus sdLDL(p<0.001). At the highest concentration tested (10.0 EPA reduced TBARSlevels by 17% and was similar to what was observed at the lowest dosetested (1.0 μM) in sdLDL. By contrast, vitamin E did not inhibit LDLoxidation at any concentration (data not shown). These data suggest thatEPA has a disproportionately greater benefit in sdLDL as compared to thelarger LDL species. Values in FIG. 11 are mean±S.D. (N=3-4).

Example 7

An experiment to study the antioxidant effect of EPA in LDL and smalldense LDL (“sdLDL”) was performed. LDL and sdLDL were isolated from theplasma of healthy volunteers by iodixanol density gradientultracentrifugation, and adjusted to a final apolipoproteinconcentration of 2 mg/mL. Sample aliquots (100 μg apolipoprotein each)were incubated with EPA, fenofibrate, gemfibrozil, or niacin (each at1.0, 5.0, or 10.0 μM) for 30 min at 37° C. Fenofibrate, gemfibrozil, andniacin were purchased from Sigma-Aldrich. Lipid oxidation was initiatedwith 10 μM CuSO₄ and monitored by the colorimetric detection ofthiobarbituric acid reactive substances (TBARS) for 1 hr. Vitamin E wasalso incubated with sample aliquots as a positive control. Forcomparison, the active o-hydroxy metabolite of atorvastatin (ATM,Toronto Research Chemicals, North York, Ontario, Canada), alone or incombination with EPA or DHA, was also incubated with sample aliquots.

Results: sdLDL

As shown in FIG. 12, EPA significantly and reproducibly inhibited sdLDLoxidation in a dose-dependent manner with an IC₅₀ of ˜2.0 μM. At thehighest treatment concentration (10

EPA inhibited TBARS formation by 93±2% (p<0.001). Inhibition wassignificant and reproducible with EPA by 19±8% (p<0.001) even at thelowest dose of 1.0 μM. The IC₅₀ for EPA was calculated to beapproximately 2 μM. ATM also showed a dose-dependent inhibition of sdLDLoxidation with a significant effect of 18±5% (p<0.001) beginning at 1.0μM as shown in FIG. 13. At the highest dose, the inhibition with ATM was90±2% (p<0.001).

Pretreatment with a combination of EPA and ATM followed by oxidativestress reduced sdLDL oxidation to an extent that was not observed withtheir individual treatments at equimolar concentrations. (FIGS. 14-15).Individual EPA and ATM treatments inhibited sdLDL oxidation at 1.0 μM by19±8% and 18±5%, respectively, while the combination inhibited sdLDLoxidation by 75±8% as compared to vehicle (p<0.001). The effects of thecombination at a lower dose of ATM (0.5 μM) resulted in inhibition ofonly 5±5% (ATM alone) but 57±9% (p<0.001) in combination with EPA (1.0μM). The inhibition with the ATM/EPA combination was much greater thanthe sum of their separate effects at the concentrations we tested inthis study. As shown in FIG. 16, fenofibrate, gemfibrozil, niacin, andvitamin E had no significant effect on sdLDL oxidation as compared tovehicle-treated controls.

The individual and combined effects of EPA and atorvastatin (parent)pretreatment of sdLDL at 10.0 μM followed by stimulation of oxidativestress were tested. As shown in FIG. 17, the combination of EPA andatorvastatin reduced sdLDL oxidation to the same extent that wasobserved with EPA alone. Separately, atorvastatin did not have anysignificant antioxidant activity. The individual EPA and atorvastatintreatments inhibited sdLDL oxidation at 10.0 μM by 92±8% and 0.1±7%,respectively, while the combination inhibited sdLDL oxidation by 91±8%as compared to vehicle (p<0.001). The inhibition of sdLDL oxidation withEPA/atorvastatin combination was thus similar to that observedseparately for EPA alone and not observed in combination with otherTG-lowering agents (FIG. 18).

The antioxidant activity of EPA to DHA was tested by pretreatment at anequimolar concentration (10.0 μM) followed by stimulation of oxidativestress. As shown in FIG. 19, only EPA significantly inhibited sdLDLoxidation after 4 hours as compared to vehicle or DHA (p<0.001). Thedifferences in activity between EPA and DHA became more apparent duringthe time course of the experiment with significant differences as earlyas 1 hour (FIG. 20).

Results: Unfractionated LDL

As shown in FIG. 21, EPA also significantly and reproducibly inhibitedunfractionated LDL oxidation in a dose-dependent manner. At the highesttreatment concentration (10 EPA inhibited TBARS formation by >90%(p<0.001) compared to vehicle-treated control. Inhibition wassignificant with EPA even at the lowest dose (1 As shown in FIG. 22, ATMalso showed a significant and dose-dependent inhibition ofunfractionated LDL oxidation beginning at 1.0 μM.

Pretreatment with a combination of EPA and ATM followed by oxidativestress reduced unfractionated LDL oxidation to an extent that was notobserved with their individual treatments at equimolar concentrations.(FIGS. 23-24). The inhibition with the ATM/EPA combination was muchgreater than the sum of their separate effects at the concentrations wetested in this study. As shown in FIG. 25, fenofibrate, gemfibrozil,niacin, and vitamin E had no significant effect on unfractionated LDLoxidation as compared to vehicle-treated controls.

The individual and combined effects of EPA and atorvastatin (parent)pretreatment of unfractionated LDL at 10.0 μM followed by stimulation ofoxidative stress were tested. As shown in FIG. 26, the combination ofEPA and atorvastatin reduced unfractionated LDL oxidation to the samesignificant extent (p<0.001 vs. vehicle or atorvastatin alone) that wasobserved with EPA alone. Separately, atorvastatin did not have anysignificant antioxidant activity.

These data show that EPA effectively blocks sdLDL and LDL oxidation atpharmacologic concentrations in vitro and in a manner that could not bereproduced with vitamin E or other TG-lowering agents. ATM had similaractivity that was enhanced in combination with EPA.

Example 8 Materials

Human umbilical vein endothelial cells (HUVECs) were isolated intoprimary cultures from female donors by Clonetics (San Diego, Calif.) andpurchased as proliferating cells. All cell culture donors were healthy,with no pregnancy or prenatal complications. The cultured cells wereincubated in 95% air/5% CO₂ at 37° C. and passaged by an enzymatic(trypsin) procedure. The confluent cells (4 to 5×10⁵ cells/35 mm dish)were placed with minimum essential medium containing 3 mM L-arginine and0.1 mM BH4 [(6R)-5,6,7,8-tetrahydrobiopterin]. Before experimental use,the cells (from second or third passage) were rinsed twice withTyrode-HEPES buffer with 1.8 mM CaCl₂.

The omega-3 fatty acids (O3FAs) cis-5,8,11,14,17-eicosapentaenoic acid(EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) were purchased from Sigma-Aldrich(St. Louis, Mo.) and prepared initially at 11 mM in redistilled ethanol.Primary and secondary O3FA stock solutions were prepared and storedunder argon at −20° C. Ortho (o)-hydroxy atorvastatin metabolite (ATM)was synthesized and purchased from Toronto Research Chemicals (NorthYork, Ontario, Canada) and solubilized in ethanol at 1 mM; subsequentdilutions were prepared in ethanol or aqueous buffer as needed.

LDL Isolation

We tested the effects of EPA treatment in the absence and presence ofATM in HUVECs following exposure to oxidized LDL (oxLDL). The oxLDLcauses eNOS uncoupling and endothelial dysfunction to reproducedisease-like conditions.25 Venous blood from healthy normolipidemicvolunteers was collected into Na-EDTA (1 mg/mL blood) vacuum tubes aftera 12-hour fast. Plasma was immediately separated by centrifugation at3,000 g for 10 minutes at 4° C. LDL (δ=1.020 to 1.063 g/mL) wasseparated from freshly drawn plasma by preparative ultracentrifugationwith a Beckman ultracentrifuge equipped with an SW-41 rotor. The densityof plasma was adjusted to 1.020 g/mL with sodium chloride solution, theplasma was centrifuged at 150,000 g for 24 hours, and thechylomicron-rich layers were discarded. The remaining fraction, afteradjustment of density at 1.063 g/mL with potassium bromide, wascentrifuged at 150,000 g for 24 hours to isolate LDL from the HDLfraction. The purified LDL was dialyzed for 96 hours against PBScontaining 0.3 mM EDTA at 4° C., then stored at 4° C.

LDL Oxidation

A sample of LDL was dialyzed against Tris/NaCl Buffer (50 mM Tris in0.15 M NaCl, pH 8.0) to remove the EDTA. Tris-NaCl buffer was added tothe dialyzed LDL to adjust the protein concentration to 30 mg/mL. A 1-mLaliquot of 20 μM CuSO₄ was added to 1 mL of dialyzed normal LDL.Oxidation at 37° C. was followed spectrophotometrically (234 nm) over aperiod of 24 hours until oxidation was complete. The oxLDL was thendialyzed at 4° C. with 4 L Tris buffer, filtered with a 0.22 μm filter,and stored under nitrogen at 4° C.

Oxidation was monitored by the use of measurements of TBARS. Briefly,LDL was incubated with thiobarbituric acid (0.5 wt/vol, in H₂SO₄, 50 mM)for 30 minutes at 100° C. The solution then was centrifuged for 5minutes, and the difference in absorbency at 532 and 580 nm wascalculated. TBARS concentration was determined as malondialdehyde (MDA)equivalents with the use of an MDA standard curve.

NO and ONOO⁻ Nanosensors

Concurrent measurements of NO and ONOO⁻ were performed with tandemelectrochemical nanosensors combined into one working unit with a totaldiameter of 200-400 nm. Their design was based on previously developedand chemically modified carbon-fiber technology. Each of the nanosensorswas made by depositing a sensing material on the tip of a carbon fiber(length 4 to 5 μm, diameter 100-200 nm). The fibers were sealed withnonconductive epoxy and electrically connected to copper wires withconductive silver epoxy. Conductive films of polymeric Ni(II) tetrakis(3-methoxy-4-hydroxyphenyl) porphyrin and Mn(III) [2.2]paracyclophanylporphyrin were used for the NO and ONOO⁻ sensors,respectively.

The amperometric method (with a response time of 0.1 ms) provides aquantitative signal (current) that is directly proportional to changes(from basal levels) in NO or ONOO⁻ concentration. Amperometricmeasurements were performed with a Gamry III double-channelpotentiostat. Basal NO or ONOO⁻ levels were measured by differentialpulse voltammetry in separate experiments.

All measurements of NO and ONOO⁻ were performed on intact endothelialcells. The NO/ONOO⁻ nanosensor module was positioned 5±2 μm from thesurface of each individual endothelial cell using a computer-controlledM3301 micromanipulator (x-y-z resolution of 0.2 μm) and microscope (bothfrom World Precision Instruments, Berlin, Germany) fitted with a CDcamera. After establishing a background current, EPA, in the absence andpresence of ATM, was added to the cells. Rapid changes in current(proportional to the molar concentrations of NO or ONOO⁻ released) wereobserved after the addition of CaI and were monitored continuously.

Treatment with oxLDL, EPA and Statins

Primary human umbilical vein endothelial cells (HUVECs) were incubatedwith vehicle or oxidized human low density lipoprotein (oxLDL) for 20min prior to treatment with EPA and/or ATM. After this incubationperiod, the cells were treated with vehicle or with 10 μM EPA in theabsence or presence of 1.0 μM ATM for 1 hour. Endothelial basal mediawas used for all the treatments. Controls were supplied with anequivalent volume of endothelial basal media.

Statistical Analyses

Data are presented as mean±S.D. for (N) separate samples or experiments.Differences between groups were analyzed using the two-tailed, Studentt-test (for comparisons between only two groups) or ANOVA followed byStudent-Newman-Keuls multiple comparisons post-hoc analysis (forcomparisons between three or more groups). Only differences withprobability values less than 0.05 were considered significant.

Results

A summary of all measurements of NO and ONOO⁻ release in HUVECs, alongwith the NO/ONOO⁻ ratios, is included in Table 1.

TABLE 1 NO and ONOO⁻ Release from HUVECs. NO/ONOO⁻ Treatment NO ONOO⁻Ratio Vehicle 376 ± 85 239 ± 41 1.57 ± 0.45 oxLDL + Vehicle 292 ± 53 246± 26 1.19 ± 0.25 oxLDL + EPA 423 ± 163 189 ± 25 2.24 ± 0.91 oxLDL + ATM480 ± 75 196 ± 34 2.45 ± 0.57 oxLDL + EPA + ATM 590 ± 190 172 ± 12 3.43± 1.13 oxLDL + DHA 567 ± 103 167 ± 18 3.39 ± 0.72 oxLDL + DHA + ATM 462± 117 133 ± 28 3.48 ± 1.14 oxLDL + Fenofibrate 327 ± 187 299 ± 24 1.09 ±0.63 oxLDL + Fenofibrate + ATM 471 ± 106 243 ± 30 1.94 ± 0.50 oxLDL +Niacin 431 ± 100 215 ± 25 2.00 ± 0.52 oxLDL + Niacin + ATM 436 ± 118 198± 28 2.20 ± 0.67 oxLDL + Gemfibrozil 192 ± 34 266 ± 34 0.72 ± 0.16oxLDL + Gemfibrozil + ATM 418 ± 85 214 ± 31 1.95 ± 0.49 EPA + oxLDL 663± 50 247 ± 17 2.68 ± 0.28 Values in Table 1 are reported as mean +/−S.D. (N = 3-16).

In comparison to vehicle, EPA, DHA, and niacin separately havebeneficial effects on the release of NO, ONOO⁻ and their ratio. Bycontrast, fenofibrate treatment produced an increase in NO release butcaused a disproportionate and detrimental increase in ONOO⁻ release,thereby reducing the ratio of NO to ONOO⁻. Gemfibrozil treatment reducedboth NO release and the NO to ONOO⁻ ratio.

We also tested the effects of EPA and other TG-lowering agents, alongwith DHA, to ATM alone and in combination as reviewed in Table 1. Weobserved that EPA+ATM treatment was associated with a similar benefit inthe relative release of NO and ONOO⁻. As a result, treatment withEPA+ATM continued to demonstrate an overall benefit in the NO to ONOO⁻ratio. Treatment with DHA+ATM also produced an overall benefit in the NOto ONOO⁻ ratio, but this was primarily attributed to a decrease in ONOO⁻release but no improvement in NO production. This is in contrast to theeffects with EPA and even DHA monotherapy. The combination of ATM+niacinresulted in its relative loss in benefit as compared to monotherapy. Ascompared to ATM alone, fenofibrate+ATM treatment caused a loss in anyminimal benefit in NO and even preserved the detrimental effects onONOO⁻ release. This resulted in an adverse effect on the NO to ONOO⁻ratio. Finally, gemfibrozil+ATM treatment had a minimal effect on ONOO⁻release and a detrimental effect on NO release, along with the NO toONOO⁻ ratio.

As shown in FIG. 27, exposure of HUVECs to oxLDL decreased NO releasefrom HUVECs by 22% (376±85 nM to 292±53 nM) while increasing ONOO⁻release as compared to untreated cells. In ECs exposed to oxLDL,treatment with EPA and ATM separately increased NO release by 45%(423±163 nM) and 64% (480±75 nM), respectively. When combined, treatmentwith EPA+ATM increased NO release by 200% (590±190 nM) as compared tovehicle (p<0.01) (FIG. 27). The improvement in NO release with theEPA+ATM combination was also greater than cells treated withnon-oxidized LDL (p<0.05). By contrast, the combination of DHA with ATMdid not improve NO release as compared to ATM or DHA separately (FIG.28).

When comparing all the agents, the improvement in NO with EPA was notreproduced with DHA or the other TG-lowering agents when combined withATM (FIG. 29). Furthermore, the NO/ONOO⁻ ratio, an indicator of normalEC function, increased by approximately 3-fold with the EPA and ATMcombination treatment as compared to control treatments (p<0.05). Theimprovement in the NO/ONOO⁻ ratio was not observed with otherTG-lowering agents as compared to EPA (FIG. 30).

Example 9

The objective of this study is to compare dose-dependent effects of EPA,EPA-docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) combination, DHA alone, glycyrrhizin,alpha-linolenic acid (ALA), docosapentaenoic acid (DPA), arachidonicacid (AA), fenofibrate, gemfibrozil and niacin on membrane cholesteroldomains that model atherosclerosis.

Membrane cholesterol domains are associated with atheroma developmentand formation of toxic cholesterol crystals. Agents that reduce suchmembrane domains would be expected to have important therapeuticbenefits.

Materials

The omega-3 fatty acids, eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA), docosahexaenoicacid (DHA), glycyrrhizin, docosapentaenoic acid (DPA), alpha-linolenicacid (ALA) and the omega-6 fatty acid arachidonic acid (AA) werepurchased from Sigma-Aldrich (Saint Louis, Mo.) and solubilized inredistilled ethanol to 500 μM under nitrogen atmosphere. The fatty acidstock solutions were stored at −20° C. until use. Fenofibrate,gemfibrozil and nicotinic acid were purchased from Toronto ResearchChemicals (North York, Ontario, Canada) and solubilized in ethanol at 1mM; subsequent dilutions were prepared in ethanol or aqueous buffer asneeded.

Methods

Multilamellar vesicles (MLVs) were prepared as binary mixtures thatinclude palmitoyloleoylphosphatidylcholine (POPC) (1.0 mg totalphospholipid per sample) and cholesterol at an elevatedcholesterol-to-phospholipid (C/P) mole ratio of 1.5:1. Component lipids(in chloroform) were transferred to 13×100 mm borosilicate culture tubesand then combined with vehicle (ethanol) or an equal volume of EPA,EPA+DHA, DHA, DPA, ALA, AA stock solutions or with other TG-loweringagents (fenofibrate, gemfibrozil, niacin), adjusted to achieve desiredtreatment concentrations (total drug-to-phospholipid mole ratio of1:30), and incubated with the test agent during removal of solvent.Samples were shell-dried under nitrogen gas and placed under vacuum for3 hours to remove residual solvent at room temperature. Afterdesiccation, each sample was resuspended in saline buffer (0.5 mM HEPES,154 mM NaCl, pH 7.3) to yield a final phospholipid concentration of 2.5mg/mL. Lipid suspensions were then vortexed for 3 minutes at ambienttemperature to form MLVs.

Membrane lipid vesicles were oriented for x-ray diffraction analysis asdescribed by others (e.g., Herbette et al., Biophys. J., vol. 20(2),pages 245-272 (1977)). Briefly, a 100 aliquot of each MLV preparation(containing 250 μg MLV) was transferred to a Lucite® sedimentation cellfitted with an aluminum foil substrate designed to collect MLVs into asingle membrane pellet upon centrifugation. Samples were then loadedinto a Sorvall AH-629 swinging bucket rotor (DuPont Corp., Wilmington,Del.) and centrifuged at 35,000 g, 5° C., for 90 minutes.

After centrifugal orientation, sample supernatants were aspirated andaluminum foil substrates, each supporting a single membrane pellet, wereremoved from the sedimentation cells. Sample pellets were dried for 5-10minutes at ambient conditions, mounted onto curved glass supports, andplaced in hermetically-sealed, brass or glass containers (for immediateanalysis or temporary storage, respectively). All x-ray diffractionexperiments were conducted at 20° C., 74% relative humidity. The latterwas established by exposing membrane samples to saturated solutions ofL-(+)-tartaric acid (K₂C₄H₄O₆.½H₂O) for at least 1 hour prior toexperimental analysis.

Oriented membrane samples were aligned at grazing incidence with respectto a collimated, mono-chromatic CuK_(α) x-ray beam (K_(α1) and K_(α2)unresolved; λ=1.54 Å) produced by a Rigaku Rotaflex RU-200,high-brilliance microfocus generator (Rigaku-MSC, The Woodlands, Tex.)as previously described (Mason et al., Biophys. J., vol. 55(4), pages769-778 (1989)). The samples were initially subjected to x-raydiffraction analysis at least 12 hours after formation of the membranepellets and retested for up to several days. Analytical x-rays weregenerated by electron bombardment of a rotating copper anode and arefiltered through a thin nickel foil to provide monochromatic radiation(λ=1.54 Å). Collimation of the x-ray beam was achieved using a singleFranks mirror. Diffraction data were collected on a one-dimensional,position-sensitive electron detector (Hecus X-ray Systems, Graz,Austria) at a sample-to-detector distance of 150 mm from the samplesite.

The d-space for any given membrane multi bilayer is a measurement of theunit cell periodicity of the membrane lipid bilayer (e.g., the distancefrom the center of one lipid bilayer to the next including surfacehydration), and is calculated from Bragg's Law, hλ=2d sin θ, where h isthe diffraction order, λ is the wavelength of the x-ray radiation (1.54Å), d is the membrane lipid bilayer unit cell periodicity, and θ is theBragg angle equal to one-half the angle between the incident beam andscattered beam.

The presence of cholesterol domains in a given membrane sample resultsin the production of distinct Bragg (diffraction) peaks having singularperiodicity values of 34 and 17 Å (typically referred to as first- andsecond-order cholesterol domain peaks). Under the specific temperatureand relative humidity conditions established for these experiments, thesecond-order, 17 Å cholesterol domain peak was well-delineated fromother, neighboring cholesterol and phospholipid diffraction peaks andwas thus used to quantitate relative cholesterol domain peak intensity.Routines written in Origin 8.6 (OriginLab Corporation, Northampton,Mass.) were used to determine total peak area (associated with alldiffraction peaks in a given pattern) against which the second-ordercholesterol domain peak was normalized.

Statistical Analyses

The raw data collected in this study was normalized using internal. Datawere presented as mean±S.E.M. for (N) separate samples or treatmentgroups. Differences between groups were analyzed using the two-tailed,Student's t-test (for comparisons between only two groups) or ANOVAfollowed by Dunnett or Student-Newman-Keuls multiple comparisonspost-hoc analysis (for comparisons between three or more groups). Alphaerror was set to 0.05 in this study.

Results

Comparative effects of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA), docosahexaenoic acid(DHA), EPA-DHA combination treatment, fenofibrate (Fenofib), nicotinicacid (Niacin), gemfibrozil (Gemfib), glycyrrhizin (Glyc), arachidonicacid (AA), α-linolenic acid (ALA), and docosapentaenoic acid (DPA) onnormalized cholesterol domain peak intensity as measured in modelmembrane prepared as binary mixtures of POPC and cholesterol at a 1.5:1C/P mole ratio are reviewed in Table 2. Membranes were treatedimmediately with each of the various agents to achieve a totaldrug-to-phospholipid (D/P) mole ratio of 1:30. In each panel,diffraction peaks highlighted in red correspond to a cholesterolcrystalline domain phase, which has a characteristic periodicity(d-space value) of 34 Å; peaks labeled 1 through 4 correspond to thesurrounding membrane phospholipid bilayer phase, which was observed tohave an average periodicity of 57 Å.

TABLE 2 Cholesterol Domain Peak Intensities for EPA and Other Agents.Relative Cholesterol % change Treatment Domain Preak Intensity Vscontrol P values Vehicle 42.3 ± 4.3 — — EPA (20:5; n-3)* 14.6 ± 5.0−65.5 ± 17.1 0.0139 DHA (22:6; n-3)* 37.6 ± 2.4 −11.1 ± 11.7 0.3975EPA + DHA* 29.8 ± 7.6 −29.6 ± 20.9 0.2279 Fenob* 41.7 ± 6.8  −1.4 ± 19.10.9451 Niacin* 27.5 ± 12.2 −35.0 ± 30.8 0.3157 Gemfib* 46.9 ± 12.6  10.9± 43.3 0.8122 Glyc* 19.1 ± 1.2 −54.9 ± 12.3 0.0002 AA (20:4; n-6) 22.5 ±4.3 −46.8 ± 15.2 0.0316 ALA (18:3; n-3) 23.2 ± 0.6 −45.2 ± 11.3 0.0122DPA (22:5; n-3) 33.5 ± 2.7 −20.8 ± 12.2 0.1587 Values are reported asmean ± SEM (N = 3-6). *P values were calculated against vehicle-treatedcontrols using an unpaired, two-tailed Student's t-test. Values withinparentheses after fatty acids denote carbon length and number ofunsaturated bonds; omega-3 or −6 fatty acid classification.

The percent changes in the area of the peaks were compared to vehiclecontrol treatment and representative diffraction patterns for each ofthe tested agents were calculated as shown in FIG. 31.

EPA treatment caused a pronounced and significant (p<0.05) reduction incholesterol domain peaks by 65% (14.6±5.0) as compared to vehicletreatment (42.3±4.3) as shown in FIG. 32.

Model membranes were prepared as binary mixtures of POPC and cholesterolat a C/P mole ratio of 1.5:1 and treated immediately with each agent ata D/P mole ratio of 1:30 (Note: The EPA, DHA treatment agent was a 1:1molar ratio). Relative cholesterol peak intensity values were derived byintegrating the second-order cholesterol domain peak and normalizing tototal phospholipid peak area associated with a given diffractionpattern. The EPA to DHA mixture was a 1:1 molar ratio. Values aremean±SEM (N=3). Samples treated with DHA did not reduce cholesteroldomains (37.6±2.4); the integrated peak areas were significantly largerthan those observed for EPA (p<0.05). The combination of EPA with DHAshowed an intermediate reduction in domain formation of 30% (29.8±7.6),consistent with a lower level of EPA. The difference in domain size withthe EPA+DHA combination at a 1:1 molar ratio was a non-significant−29.6% (29.8±7.6) compared to vehicle or other treatments (FIG. 32).Values are mean±SEM (N=3). *p<0.05 versus control; ^(†)p<0.05 versusDHA; ^(§) p<0.05 versus Fenofib (Student-Newman-Keuls multiplecomparisons test; overall ANOVA: p=0.0275, F=4.326).

EPA treatment induced significant reduction in the domain peak intensity(65%, 14.6±5) compared to vehicle control. There were no significantchanges in cholesterol domain size for membranes treated with eitherniacin (27.5±12.2) or gemfibrozil (46.9±12.6) as compared to vehicletreatment (Table 2); the cholesterol domain peaks associated withgemfibrozil treatment were numerically greater than vehicle by 11% thanvehicle. A reduction in domain peak intensity was observed with niacin(−35%) but it was not statistically significant as compared to vehicletreated control samples (Table 2). Treatment with niacin was associatedwith substantial variation in cholesterol domain peak size compared tothe other treatments. As a positive control, effects of EPA werecompared to glycyrrhizin, a glycosylated sterol that has been shown toreduce cholesterol domains in model membranes. Like EPA, glycyrrhizinreduced the size of the integrated peaks associated with the cholesteroldomains by 54.9% (19.1±1.2) in a highly reproducible and significantfashion (FIG. 33). Each agent was tested at D/P mole ratio of 1:30 andtreated immediately with the different agents. Values are mean±SEM(N=3-6). **p<0.01 versus control; †p<0.05 versus DHA; § p<0.05 versusFenofib (Student-Newman-Keuls multiple comparisons test; overall ANOVA:p=0.0010, F=7.624).

DPA did not reduce domains compared to EPA (Table 2, FIG. 34, 35, 36).Treatment with ALA (18:3; n-3) and AA (20:4; n-6) also significantlyreduced domain peak intensity, although to lesser extents of −46.8% and−45.2%, respectively (p<0.05 versus control for both) (Table 2, FIGS.35, 36).

Dose-dependent effects of EPA on membrane cholesterol domains in modelmembrane prepared as binary mixtures of POPC and cholesterol at a 1.5:1C/P mole ratio. are reviewed in Table 3. Membranes were treatedimmediately with EPA at the D/P mole ratios indicated. Relativecholesterol peak intensity values were derived by integrating thesecond-order cholesterol domain peak and normalizing to totalphospholipid peak area associated with a given diffraction pattern.Values are mean±SEM (N=3). ANOVA: p=0.0798, F=3.276.

TABLE 3 Dose-Dependent Effects of EPA on Membrane Cholesterol Domains.Relative Chotesterol % Change † Treatment* Domain Peak Intensity (vs.Control) P Values Vehicle 42.3 ± 4.3 — — EPA, 1:90 36.0 ± 3.1 −15.0 ±12.6 0.3010 EPA, 1:60 29.5 ± 10.9 −30.2 ± 27.9 0.3373 EPA, 1:30 14.6 ±5.0 −65.5 ± 17.1 0.0139 Values are reported as mean ± SEM (N = 3-6). *Pvalues were calculated against vehicle-treated controls using anunpaired, two-tailed Student's t-test. Values within parentheses afterfatty acids denote carbon length and number of unsaturated bonds;omega-3 or omega-6 fatty acid classification.

The reduction in cholesterol domain peak intensity with EPA wasdose-dependent over a range of EPA to phospholipid mole ratios of 1:30to 1:90 (Table 3, FIG. 37).

Example 10

The objective of this study was to compare the effects of EPA,fenofibrate, nicotinic acid, gemfibrozil, and vitamin E on the oxidationof small dense LDL (sdLDL) isolated from human subjects under conditionsof hyperglycemia.

Materials

Eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA), fenofibrate, gemfibrozil and nicotinic acid(niacin) were purchased from Sigma-Aldrich (Saint Louis, Mo.) andsolubilized separately in ethanol to 1.0 mM under nitrogen atmosphere.Vitamin E (α-tocopherol) purchased from Sigma-Aldrich was prepared inethanol at 1.0 mM (ε=3.06×10⁴M⁻¹ cm⁻¹ at 294 nm) prior to experimentaluse. Test compounds were further diluted in ethanol or aqueous buffer asneeded. Phosphate Buffered Saline (PBS) purchased from Sigma-Aldrich wasprepared in double distilled water at 10 mM (138 mM NaCl, 2.7 mM KCl, pH7.4). Glucose prepared in PBS was added to test samples to achieve afinal concentration of 11.0 mM (200 mg/dL).

Methods

LDL and sdLDL were isolated from the plasma of healthy volunteers byiodixanol density gradient ultracentrifugation and adjusted to a finalapolipoprotein concentration of 10 mg/mL. Sample aliquots (100 μgapolipoprotein each) were incubated with vehicle (ethanol), EPA,fenofibrate, gemfibrozil, or niacin (each at 10.0 μM) and adjusted to afinal volume of 1.0 mL in glucose-treated PBS and incubated for 30minutes at 37° C. in a shaking water bath. Lipid oxidation was initiatedwith 1.0 μM CuSO₄ and 100 μL of sample aliquots were combined with 1.0mL thiobarbituric acid (0.5%), 10 μL trichloroacetic acid (10%), 10 μLBHT (35 mM in methanol), and 10 μL EDTA (5 mM) at different time points(up to 4 hr). Sample aliquots were incubated at 100° C. for 30 minutesand then assayed for the formation of thiobarbituric acid-reactivesubstances (TBARS), having a molar absorptivity (c) value of 1.56×10⁵M⁻¹ cm⁻¹ at 532 nm and were derived principally from the reaction ofthiobarbituric acid with malondialdehyde (MDA). Lipid oxidation wasmeasured by the colorimetric detection of malondialdehyde (MDA), amarker of oxidative stress.

Statistical Analyses

Data were presented as mean±SD for (n) separate samples or experiments.Differences between groups were analyzed using the unpaired, two-tailedStudent's t-test (for comparisons between only two groups) or ANOVAfollowed by Student-Newman-Keuls multiple comparisons post hoc analysis(for comparisons between three or more groups). Only differences withprobability values less than 0.05 were considered significant.

Results

Exposure of sLDL to hyperglycemic conditions (200 mg/dL glucose)increased the sdLDL oxidation (formation of MDA) by 55% (from 3.4±0.1 to5.3±0.3 μM) compared to non-glucose-treated controls (FIG. 38).

EPA treatment inhibited glucose-induced sdLDL oxidation in adose-dependent fashion with an IC₅₀ less than 1.0 μM (FIG. 39). Further,at the highest concentration tested (10.0 EPA inhibited sdLDL oxidationby 94% (5.3±0.3 μM to 0.2±0.1 μM) as compared to vehicle controls (FIG.39). Values are mean±S.D. (N=3).**p<0.001 versus vehicle- (glucose-)treated control; †p<0.001 versus 1.0 μM EPA; § p<0.01 versus 2.5 μM EPA(Student-Newman-Keuls multiple comparisons test; overall ANOVA:p<0.0001, F=1358.7).

Treatment with fenofirbrate, niacin, and gemfibrozil did not inhibitglucose-induced sdLDL oxidation (FIG. 40 and FIG. 41).

Vitamin E failed to inhibit sdLDL oxidation. Instead, vitamin Eincreased sdLDL oxidation by 63% as compared to glucose-treated controls(p<0.001) (FIG. 41).

Example 11

The objectives of this study were to:

-   -   1) compare the time-dependent effects of pretreatment with EPA,        alone or in combination with a statin (e.g., atorvastatin active        metabolite, also referred to herein as “ATM”), to pretreatment        with other triglyceride-lowering agents such as fenofibrate,        niacin and gemfibrozil and DHA on endothelial cell function as        indicated by changes in nitric oxide (NO) and nitroxidative        (ONOO⁻) stress release under conditions of oxidative stress        using oxidized LDL (oxLDL);    -   2) test the effects of oxLDL treated with EPA, alone or in        combination with ATM, on endothelial cell function compared to        those of treatment with DHA; and    -   3) test the effects of pretreating LDL with EPA, alone or in        combination with ATM, and then subjecting the pretreated LDL to        oxidation, compared to those of DHA.

The omega-3 fatty acid, cis-5,8,11,14,17-eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) anddocosahexaenoic acid (DHA) were purchased from Sigma-Aldrich (SaintLouis, Mo.) and solubilized in redistilled ethanol to 11 mM undernitrogen atmosphere. EPA and DHA stock solutions were stored at −20° C.until use. Fenofibrate, gemfibrozil and nicotinic acid were purchasedfrom Toronto Research Chemicals (North York, Ontario, Canada) andsolubilized in ethanol at 1 mM; subsequent dilutions were prepared inethanol or aqueous buffer as needed. Atorvastatin ortho- (o-) hydroxy(active) metabolite (ATM) was also purchased from Toronto ResearchChemicals (North York, Ontario, Canada) and solubilized in ethanol at1.0 mM.

Human umbilical vein endothelial cells (HUVECs) were obtained fromhealthy, female donors and isolated into primary, proliferating cellcultures (Clonetics, San Diego, Calif.). The cells were incubated in 95%air/5% CO₂ at 37° C. and passaged by an enzymatic (trypsin) procedure.The confluent cells (4 to 5×10⁵ cells/35 mm dish) were plated withminimum essential medium containing 3 mM L-arginine and 0.1 mM BH4[(6R)-5,6,7,8-tetrahydrobiopterin]. Before experimental use, the cells(from second or third passage) were rinsed twice with Tyrode-HEPESbuffer with 1.8 mM CaCl₂.

Venous blood was collected from healthy volunteers into vacutainer tubescontaining sodium EDTA. Plasma was separated by centrifugation at 3000 gfor 25 min at 4° C. and adjusted to a density of 1.020 g/mL with KBr.Triglyceride-rich lipoproteins (TGRL) and LDL fractions were isolated bysequential centrifugation at 70,000 rpm at 4° C. in a Beckman LE-80ultracentrifuge using a Beckman 50.4Ti rotor (Beckman Coulter, Inc.,Fullerton, Calif.). The TGRL fraction (with a relative density of<1.020) was aspirated from the top of the centrifugate and discarded,leaving an LDL-enriched infranate (with a relative density of1.020-1.063). The LDL subfraction was retained for additionalexperimentation. Plasma and lipoprotein fractions were maintained at 4°C. and protected from excessive exposure to light. Prior to oxidationexperiments, EDTA was removed from the lipoprotein fraction using PD-10desalting columns (GE Healthcare, Piscataway N.J.). After equilibrationof the column with phosphate buffered saline (PBS), 2.5 mL of thelipoprotein fraction was loaded on the column and the flow-throughdiscarded. The lipoprotein was then eluted with 3 mL of PBS. The LDLfractions were further diluted with PBS to obtain a 100 μg/mL apoB100concentration.

LDL underwent oxidation following the addition of 10 μM CuSO₄. Tomeasure oxidation, 100 μL aliquots were removed and combined with 1.0 mLthiobarbituric acid (0.5%), 10 μL trichloroacetic acid (5%), 10 μL BHT(5 mg/mL in methanol), and 10 μL EDTA (5 mM). Sample aliquots wereincubated at 100° C. for 20 min and then assayed for the formation ofTBARS, which have a molar absorptivity (c) value of 1.56×10⁵ M⁻¹ cm⁻¹ at532 nm and are derived principally from the reaction of thiobarbituricacid with MDA, a reactive aldehyde produced by LDL oxidation. SampleTBARS concentrations were determined spectrophotometrically by measuringsample absorbances against a standard curve derived from the hydrolysisof 1,1,3,3-tetramethoxypropane.

Concurrent measurements of NO and ONOO⁻ were performed with tandemelectrochemical nanosensors combined into one working unit with a totaldiameter of 200-400 nm. Their design is based on previously developedand chemically modified carbon-fiber technology. Each of the nanosensorswas made by depositing a sensing material on the tip of a carbon fiber(length 4 to 5 μm, diameter 100-200 nm). The fibers were sealed withnonconductive epoxy and electrically connected to copper wires withconductive silver epoxy. Conductive films of polymeric Ni(II) tetrakis(3-methoxy-4-hydroxyphenyl) porphyrin and Mn(III) [2.2]paracyclophanyl-porphyrin were used for the NO and ONOO⁻ sensors,respectively.

The amperometric method (with a response time of 0.1 ms) provides aquantitative signal (current) that is directly proportional to changes(from basal levels) in NO or ONOO⁻ concentration. Amperometricmeasurements were performed with a Gamry III double-channelpotentiostat. Basal NO or ONOO⁻ levels were measured by differentialpulse voltammetry in separate experiments.

All measurements of NO and ONOO⁻ were performed on intact endothelialcells. The NO/ONOO⁻ nanosensor module was positioned 5±2 μm from thesurface of each individual endothelial cell using a computer-controlledM3301 micromanipulator (x-y-z resolution of 0.2 μm) and microscope (bothfrom World Precision Instruments, Berlin, Germany) fitted with a CDcamera. After establishing a background current, EPA and otherTG-lowering agents (fenofibrate, niacin, and gemfibrozil), in theabsence and presence of different statins, were added to the cells.Cells will then be treated with calcium ionophore (to maximallystimulate the release of nitrous molecules) and monitored continuouslyfor changes in amperometric current.

Data are presented as mean±S.D. for (N) separate samples or treatmentgroups. Differences between groups were analyzed using the two-tailed,Student's t-test (for comparisons between only two groups) or ANOVAfollowed by Dunnett or Student-Newman-Keuls multiple comparisonspost-hoc analysis (for comparisons between three or more groups). Alphaerror was set to 0.05 in this study.

To assess the time-dependent effects of pretreatment (Objective 1),HUVECs were treated with vehicle or oxLDL for up to three hoursfollowing EPA pretreatment for 30 min—alone or in combination withATM—versus DHA, fenofibrate, niacin and gemfibrozil. NO and ONOO⁻release were measured following stimulation with calcium. Cells wereincubated with the various test agents at 10 μM and then challenged withoxLDL at 11 mg/dL (based on protein concentration) prior to stimulatingmaximal NO and ONOO⁻ release with 1.0 μM calcium ionophore. Controlgroups were treated with vehicle alone in the absence or presence ofoxLDL. The NO/ONOO⁻ ratio was calculated as the arithmetic quotient ofseparate NO and ONOO⁻ measurements. HUVECs were pretreated for 30 minwith the different compounds followed by exposure to oxLDL for up to 3hr before stimulation of NO and ONOO⁻ release with calcium.

To test the effects of oxLDL, cells were incubated with the various testagents at 10 μM and then challenged with oxLDL at 11 mg/dL (based onprotein concentration) prior to stimulating maximal NO and ONOO− releasewith 1.0 μM calcium ionophore. Control groups were treated with vehiclealone in the absence or presence of oxLDL. The NO/ONOO− ratio wascalculated as the arithmetic quotient of separate NO and ONOO−measurements. HUVECs were pretreated for 30 min with the differentcompounds followed by exposure to oxLDL for up to 3 hr beforestimulation of NO and ONOO− release with calcium. As shown in Table 4and FIG. 42, all of the tested treatments improved endothelial functionfor up to 3 hrs if applied prior to the addition of oxLDL. The greatestimprovement in the NO/ONOO⁻ ratio was observed with the combination ofEPA and ATM as it increased this ratio by 86% from 1.12±0.14 withvehicle to 2.05±0.23 with the combination treatment (p<0.001). Thisincrease with the combination was significant as compared to DHA(1.68±0.12) or ATM (1.69±0.23) alone (p<0.05) and even EPA alone(1.73±0.20). It was also significant compared to fenofibrate(1.51±0.19), gemfibrozil (1.65±0.13) and niacin (1.45±0.14). All of thetreatments improved the NO/ONOO⁻ ratio as compared to vehicle treatmentalone. Values are mean±S.D. (N=3-4). *p<0.05 and **p<0.001 versusvehicle only (no oxLDL); p<0.001 versus vehicle-then-oxLDL; § p<0.05versus separate ATM or DHA treatments (Student-Newman-Keuls multiplecomparisons test; overall ANOVA: p<0.0001, F=13.631).

TABLE 4 Effects of oxLDL on NO and ONOO⁻ release from HUVECs pretreatedwith EPA, ATM, EPA/ATM combination, DHA, fenofibrate, gemfibrozil, ornicotinic acid. Treatment NO ONOO⁻ NO/ONOO⁻ Ratio Vehicle 431 ± 20 208 ±3 2.08 ± 0.10 Vehicle, oxLDL 294 ± 25** 263 ± 23* 1.12 ± 0.14** EPA,oxLDL 394 ± 43^(‡) 228 ± 10 1.73 ± 0.20*^(‡) ATM, oxLDL 382 ± 25^(‡) 226± 26 1.69 ± 0.23*^(†) EPA/ATM, oxLDL 428 ± 25^(‡§) 209 ± 21^(†) 2.05 ±0.23^(‡¶) DHA, oxLDL 378 ± 5^(†) 229 ± 16 1.68 ± 0.12*^(†) Fenofib,oxLDL 349 ± 28*^(†) 231 ± 22 1.51 ± 0.19*^(†) Gemfib, oxLDL 377 ± 24^(†)228 ± 11 1.65 ± 0.13*^(†) Niacin, oxLDL 346 ± 17*^(†) 238 ± 20 1.45 ±0.14*^(†) Values are reported as mean ± S.D. (N = 3-4). *p < 0.05 and**p < 0.001 versus vehicle-only treatment; ^(†)p <0.05 and ^(‡)p <0.001versus vehicle, oxLDL treatment; ^(§)p <0.05 versus cognate Fenofib orNiacin treatments; ^(¶)p < 0.05 versus all other treatments(Student-Newman-Keuls multiple comparisons post hoc test; overallANOVA—NO release data: p < 0.0001, F = 9.431; ONOO⁻ release data: p =0.0099, F = 3.132; NO/ONOO⁻ ratio data: p < 0.0001, F = 9.972).

To test the effects of EPA—alone or in combination with ATM—versus DHAon EC function (Objective 2), HUVECs were treated with vehicle or oxLDLthat was treated for 30 min with EPA, alone or in combination with ATM,or DHA. After 60 min exposure to the oxLDL that had been treated withEPA, EPA/ATM or DHA, the cells were stimulated with calcium to measurerelease of NO and ONOO⁻.

Cells were co-incubated with the various test agents, each at 10 μM, andoxLDL at 11 mg/dL (based on protein concentration) prior to stimulatingmaximal NO and ONOO⁻ release with 1.0 μM calcium ionophore. Controlgroups were treated with vehicle alone in the absence or presence ofoxLDL. The NO/ONOO⁻ ratio was calculated as the arithmetic quotient ofseparate NO and ONOO⁻ measurements. HUVECs were treated with oxLDL thathad been already treated with the different compounds for 30 min. After60 min, NO and ONOO⁻ release was induced with 1.0 μM calcium ionophorestimulation, and the amounts of released NO and ONOO⁻ were measured.

To test the comparative effects of EPA, DHA and EPA/ATM combinationtreatment, cells were co-incubated with the various test agents, each at10 μM, and oxLDL at 11 mg/dL (based on protein concentration) prior tostimulating maximal NO and ONOO− release with 1.0 μM calcium ionophore.Control groups were treated with vehicle alone in the absence orpresence of oxLDL. The NO/ONOO− ratio was calculated as the arithmeticquotient of separate NO and ONOO− measurements. HUVECs were treated withoxLDL that had been already treated with the different compounds for 30min. After 60 min, NO and ONOO− release were measured with calciumstimulation. As shown in Table 5 and FIG. 43, the greatest improvementin endothelial function were observed with the combination of EPA andATM (1.94±0.25) by two-fold as compared to vehicle+oxLDL (0.94±0.22).This effect was significant as compared to DHA+oxLDL (1.51±0.30) orEPA+oxLDL alone (1.66±0.25). Values are mean±S.D. (N=3-4). *p<0.05 and**p<0.001 versus vehicle only (no oxLDL); p<0.05 and p<0.001 versusvehicle+oxLDL; § p<0.05 versus DHA+oxLDL (Student-Newman-Keuls multiplecomparisons test; overall ANOVA: p<0.0001, F=13.958).

TABLE 5 Comparative effects of EPA, DHA, and EPA/ATM combinationtreatment on NO and ONOO⁻ release from HUVECs treated concomitantly withoxLDL. Treatment NO ONOO⁻ NO/ONOO⁻ Ratio Vehicle 426 ± 42 211 ± 22 2.02± 0.29 Vehicle + oxLDL 262 ± 45** 278 ± 43* 0.94 ± 0.22** EPA + oxLDL385 ± 43^(‡) 232 ± 24^(†) 1.66 ± 0.25^(†) EPA/ATM + oxLDL 416 ± 36^(‡)215 ± 20^(†) 1.94 ± 0.25^(‡§) DHA + oxLDL 362 ± 39^(‡) 240 ± 27 1.51- ±0.23*^(†) Values are reported as mean ± S.D. (N = 4-7). *p < 0.05 and**p <0.001 versus vehicle-only treatment; ^(†)p < 0.05 and ^(‡)p < 0.001versus vehicle + oxLDL treatment; ^(§)p < 0.05 versus cognate DHAtreatment (Student-Newman-Keuls multiple comparisons post hoc test;overall ANOVA—NO release data: p < 0.0001, F = 15.700; ONOO⁻ releasedata: p = 0.0166, F = 3.969; NO/ONOO⁻ ratio data: p < 0.0001, F =13.958).

To test the effects of EPA pretreatment of HUVECs combined with theeffects of EPA pretreatment of LDL undergoing auto-oxidation (Objective3), HUVECs were pretreated with EPA—alone or in combination with ATM—orDHA for 30 min. The cells were then exposed to native LDL that had beenpretreated with these same agents under conditions of auto-oxidation for2 h. After 60 min, NO and ONOO⁻ release were measured after beinginduced with addition of calcium.

Cells were co-incubated with the various test agents, each at 10 μM, andoxLDL or native LDL, each at 11 mg/dL (based on protein concentration),prior to stimulating maximal NO and ONOO⁻ release with 1.0 μM calciumionophore. Control groups were treated with vehicle alone in the absenceor presence of oxLDL. The NO/ONOO⁻ ratio was calculated as thearithmetic quotient of separate NO and ONOO⁻ measurements. HUVECs werepretreated with the different agents for 30 min. The cells were thenexposed to LDL that had been pretreated with the different compoundsunder conditions of auto-oxidation for 30 min. After 60 min, NO andONOO⁻ release were measured after being stimulated with addition ofcalcium.

To test the comparative effects of EPA, DHA and EPA/ATM combinationtreatment combination treatment on NO and ONOO− release from HUVECstreated concomitantly with native LDL (and then exposed to oxidativeconditions) versus cells treated with oxLDL directly, cells wereco-incubated with the various test agents, each at 10 μM, and oxLDL ornative LDL, each at 11 mg/dL (based on protein concentration), prior tostimulating maximal NO and ONOO− release with 1.0 μM calcium ionophore.Control groups were treated with vehicle alone in the absence orpresence of oxLDL. The NO/ONOO− ratio was calculated as the arithmeticquotient of separate NO and ONOO− measurements. HUVECs were pretreatedwith the different agents for 30 min. The cells were then exposed to LDLthat had been pretreated with the different compounds under conditionsof auto-oxidation for 30 min. After 60 min, NO and ONOO− release wasmeasured with calcium stimulation. As shown in Table 6 and FIG. 44, thegreatest improvement in endothelial function was observed with thecombination of EPA and ATM+LDL (auto-oxidized) (2.19±0.33) as comparedto vehicle+oxLDL (0.95±0.22); the improvement was not significantcompared to vehicle+LDL (auto-oxidized) (1.53±0.20). This effect wasnumerically greater as compared to DHA (1.92±0.30) and EPA (2.03±0.30)alone but not in a statistically significant fashion.

TABLE 6 Comparative effects of EPA, DHA, and EPA/ATM combinationpretreatment on NO and ONOO⁻ release from HUVECs treated concomitantlywith native LDL undergoing oxidation. Values are mean ± S.D. (N = 3-4).**p < 0.001 versus vehicle only (no oxLDL); †p < 0.01 versus vehicle +LDL; §p < 0.001 versus vehicle + oxLDL (Student-Newman-Keuls multiplecomparisons test; overall ANOVA: p < 0.0001, F = 13.436). Treatment NOONOO⁻ NO/ONOO⁻ Ratio Vehicle 430 ± 43 212 ± 25 2.03 ± 0.32 Vehicle + LDL362 ± 30 237 ± 24 1.53 ± 0.20 Vehicle + oxLDL 263 ± 45**^(‡) 278 ±43*^(†) 0.95 ± 0.22**^(†) EPA + LDL 419 ± 37^(§) 207 ± 24^(§) 2.03 ±0.30^(§) EPA/ATM + LDL 444 ± 54^(†§) 202 ± 18^(§) 2.19 ± 0.33^(†§) DHA +LDL 406 ± 40^(§) 212 ± 26^(§) 1.92 ± 0.30^(§) Values are reported asmean ± S.D. (N = 4-7). *p <0.01 and **p <0.001 versus vehicle-onlytreatment; ^(†)p < 0.05 and ^(††)p < 0.001 versus vehicle + LDLtreatment; ^(§)p < 0.01 versus vehicle + oxLDL treatment(Student-Newman-Keuls multiple comparisons post hoc test; overallANOVA—NO release data: p < 0.0001, F = 15.995; ONOO⁻ release data: p =0.0017, F = 5.412; NO/ONOO⁻ ratio data: p < 0.0001, F = 13.436).

In all of the different test conditions, the best improvement inendothelial function was observed with the combination of EPA and ATM.This was evident when the treatments were added prior to oxLDL exposure(i.e. HUVEC pretreatment) or to oxLDL that is then added to the HUVECs.Finally, the combination of EPA and ATM was also best when added to theLDL while undergoing oxidative conditions.

Example 12

An experiment to study the antioxidant effect of EPA in small dense LDL(“sdLDL”) was performed. sdLDL was isolated from human plasma byisopycnic centrifugation, separated into test samples of 200 μg/mL, andincubated at 37° C. for 30 min in the absence (vehicle) or presence ofEPA, fenofibrate, niacin, or gemfibrozil, each at 10.0 μM. All samples,with the exception of non-oxidized sdLDL controls, were subjected tocopper-induced oxidation for 1 hour. Human umbilical vein endothelialcells (HUVECs) were incubated with the various sdLDL samples, stimulatedwith calcium, and monitored for nitric oxide (NO) and peroxynitrite(ONOO⁻) release using nanosensor technology.

EPA treatment reduced sdLDL oxidation by >90% (p<0.001) compared tovehicle treatment alone. When applied directly to HUVECs,vehicle-treated, oxidized sdLDL reduced NO release by 20% as compared tonon-oxidized sdLDL (from 758±40 to 610±43 nM). Following exposure toEPA-treated, oxidized sdLDL, however, HUVEC NO release (931±59 nM)increased by 53% and 23% as compared to oxidized LDL and non-oxidizedsdLDL treatments, respectively. None of the other TG-lowering agentsinhibited sdLDL oxidation, resulting in reduced NO release. In HUVECschallenged with oxidized sdLDL, pretreated with fenofibrate, niacin, orgemfibrozil, NO release was reduced by 21%, 45%, and 33%, respectively,as compared to effects observed with vehicle-treated, oxidized sdLDL(p<0.05).

These data demonstrate that EPA pretreatment reduced sdLDL oxidation andimproved endothelial function as compared to other TG-lowering agents.

Example 13

A study was performed to test the separate and combined effects of EPAand atorvastatin o-hydroxy (active) metabolite (ATM) on endothelialfunction measured ex vivo in rat renal glomerular endothelial cells(ECs) exposed to oxidized LDL (oxLDL) and high glucose levels. Theeffects of EPA and ATM on EC function were compared to those of otherTG-lowering agents (niacin and fenofibrate), as well as docosahexaenoicacid (DHA).

Healthy male Wistar Kyoto (WKY) rats, aged 7-9 weeks and weighing 250±20g, were obtained from inbred colonies (National Institutes of Health,Bethesda, Md.). Animals were housed in a controlled environment thatprovided food and water ad libitum prior to the study. Food was providedin the form of a standard, purified diet (19% protein, 12% fat, 69%carbohydrates, expressed as % of total energy content in units ofkcal/g) obtained from Purina TestDiet (Richmond, Ind.). Animals weresacrificed and tissue samples obtained immediately for experimentation.All procedures were conducted in accordance with standard InstitutionalAnimal Care and Use Committee guidelines and conformed to the Guide forthe Care and Use of Laboratory Animals published by the US NationalInstitutes of Health.

EPA and DHA were purchased from Sigma-Aldrich (St. Louis, Mo.) andsolubilized in ethanol to 1.0 mM under nitrogen atmosphere. ATM waspurchased from Toronto Research Chemicals (North York, Ontario, Canada)and solubilized in methanol to 1.0 mM. Fenofibrate and niacin werepurchased from Sigma-Aldrich and solubilized in ethanol to 1.0 mM. Thecalcium ionophore (CaI), A23187, was purchased from Sigma-Aldrich andprepared in aqueous buffer to 1.0 mM. All test compounds were furtherdiluted in ethanol or aqueous buffer as needed.

Venous blood from healthy normolipidemic volunteers was collected intoNa-EDTA (1 mg/mL blood) vacuum tubes after a 12-hour fast. LDL (δ=1.020to 1.063 g/mL) was separated from freshly drawn plasma by preparativeultracentrifugation as previously described. The LDL fraction wasdialyzed for 96 hours against PBS containing 0.3 mM EDTA and stored at4° C. until experimental use.

LDL was oxidized according to the methods of Huber et al. 16 Briefly,the purified LDL fraction was dialyzed against Tris/NaCl Buffer (50 mMTris in 0.15 M NaCl, pH 8.0) to remove EDTA. Additional buffer was addedto adjust the protein concentration to 30 mg/mL. LDL oxidation wasinitiated with 20 μM CuSO₄ and monitored spectrophotometrically (234 nm)over a period of 24 hours until complete. The oxLDL was then dialyzed at4° C. with 4 L Tris buffer, filtered with a 0.22 μm filter, and storedunder nitrogen at 4° C.

Immediately after sacrificing the rats, kidneys were removed, cut into100 μm sections and transferred to a separate organ chamber containingDulbecco's phosphate buffered saline (137 M NaCl, 2.7 M KCl, 8.1 MNa₂HPO₄, 1.5 M KH₂PO₄, 0.9 M CaCl₂), and 0.49 M MgCl₂) and 5.6 M glucoseat pH 7.4.

Concurrent measurements of NO and ONOO⁻ were performed on intactglomerular (cortical zone) endothelial cells using tandemelectrochemical nanosensors, as previously described (FIG. 45).

The NO/ONOO− nanosensor was positioned near the surface of theendothelial cells using a computer-controlled M3301 micromanipulator(x-y-z resolution of 0.2 μm) and microscope (both from World PrecisionInstruments, Berlin, Germany) fitted with a CD camera. Each analyte wasmeasured from amperograms and standard calibration curves collectedunder maximum current. The nanosensors have a high reproducibility ofmeasurement (5% to 12%) at a constant distance from the surface of theendothelial cell. After establishing a background current, maximal NOand ONOO⁻ release was induced by injecting CaI into the organ chamberusing a nanoinjector (World Precision Instruments, Berlin Germany).Changes in current (proportional to the molar concentrations of NO orONOO⁻ released) were monitored continuously immediately following CaIstimulation.

CaI-stimulated changes in NO/ONOO⁻ release were measured in glomerularendothelial cells exposed to oxLDL (11 mg/dL) and glucose (300 mg/dL)versus vehicle (for 5 min) and then treated (for 1 hr) with either EPA,ATM, or EPA+ATM (each treatment at 10.0 μM) versus vehicle. We comparedthe effects of EPA and ATM to DHA and to other TG-lowering agents(fenofibrate, niacin) under these same conditions. In preliminaryexperiments within our laboratory using human umbilical vein endothelialcells (HUVECs) exposed to oxidized LDL, EPA was found to increase NOrelease in a manner that was significantly enhanced by co-treatment withATM; similar effects were not observed with DHA or any of the otherTG-lowering agents (fenofibrate, niacin) in combination with ATM.

Data are presented as mean±standard deviation (SD) for (N) separatesamples or experiments. Differences between groups were analyzed usingthe unpaired, two-tailed Student's t-test (for comparisons between onlytwo groups) or ANOVA followed by Student-Newman-Keuls multiplecomparisons post hoc analysis (for comparisons between three or moregroups). Only differences with probability values less than 0.05 wereconsidered significant.

As shown in FIGS. 46-48, simulating disease-like conditions by exposureto oxLDL and high glucose levels caused an 81% reduction (p<0.001) inendothelial NO release and a 112% increase (p<0.001) in ONOO⁻ release ascompared to untreated controls. The NO/ONOO⁻ ratio, an indicator of eNOScoupling efficiency, decreased from 2.89 to 0.26 (p<0.001).

In ECs exposed to disease-like conditions, treatment with EPA increasedNO release by 205% (p<0.001), reduced ONOO⁻ release by 27% (p<0.05), andincreased the NO/ONOO⁻ ratio more than 4-fold (to 1.08; p<0.01).

ATM also improved EC function under disease-like conditions, increasingNO release by 205% (p<0.001), reducing ONOO⁻ release by 25% (p<0.05),and increasing the NO/ONOO⁻ ratio more than 4-fold (p<0.01). DHA,fenofibrate, and niacin had similar but quantitatively smaller effectson EC function.

EPA and ATM combination treatment increased NO release by 298%(p<0.001), decreased ONOO⁻ release by 32% (p<0.05), and increased theNO/ONOO⁻ ratio approximately 6-fold (to 1.51; p<0.001) as compared tovehicle treatment alone. The combined effects of EPA and ATM on NOrelease and the NO/ONOO⁻ ratio were significantly greater than observedfor either agent alone (p<0.05).

These data demonstrate that EPA and ATM improve endothelial function inan ex vivo model of EC dysfunction in a manner that is significantlyenhanced by their co-administration. Although the mechanism for thiscombinatorial effect is not fully understood, these data suggest thatEPA-ATM interactions may provide atheroprotective benefits beyondchanges in lipid levels alone, which may be of particular interest inpatients with dyslipidemia and impaired glucose metabolism.

From the foregoing, it will be appreciated that specific embodiments ofthe invention have been described herein for purposes of illustration,but that various modifications may be made without deviating from thescope of the invention. Accordingly, the invention is not limited exceptas by the appended claims.

What is claimed is:
 1. A method of treating or preventingatherosclerosis in a subject having a high baseline serum glucose levelof at least 126 mg/dL and a baseline triglyceride level of about 200mg/dL to 499 mg/dL, the method comprising administering to the subject apharmaceutical composition comprising eicosapentaenoic acid or aderivative thereof.
 2. The method of claim 1, wherein the pharmaceuticalcomposition comprises at least 80%, at least 90%, at least 95%, or atleast 96%, by weight of all fatty acids (and/or derivatives thereof)present, eicosapentaenoic acid or a derivative thereof.
 3. The method ofclaim 1, wherein the pharmaceutical composition comprises nodocosahexaenoic acid or esters thereof.
 4. The method of claim 1,wherein the reduction or prevention occurs by a free radicalchain-breaking mechanism.
 5. The method of claim 1, further comprisingdetermining a baseline oxidized sdLDL level in the subject prior toadministering to the subject the pharmaceutical composition
 6. Themethod of claim 5 further comprising determining a second oxidized sdLDLlevel in the subject after administering to the subject a pharmaceuticalcomposition comprising eicosapentaenoic acid or a derivative thereof,wherein the second oxidized sdLDL level is not greater than, notsignificantly greater than, or lower than the baseline oxidized sdLDLlevel and/or wherein the second oxidized sdLDL level is not greaterthan, not significantly greater than, or lower than the baselineoxidized sdLDL level in comparison to a second subject who has notreceived the pharmaceutical composition.
 7. The method of claim 6,wherein the method further comprises administering atorvastatin and/oro-hydroxyatorvastatin to the subject.
 8. The method of claim 7, whereinthe second oxidized sdLDL level is not greater than, not significantlygreater than, or lower than the baseline oxidized sdLDL level incomparison to a second subject who has received the atorvastatin and/orthe o-hydroxyatorvastatin but not the pharmaceutical composition.
 9. Themethod of claim 7, wherein the second oxidized sdLDL level is notgreater than, not significantly greater than, or lower than the baselineoxidized sdLDL level in comparison to a second subject who has receivedthe pharmaceutical composition but not the o-hydroxyatorvastatin. 10.The method of claim 1, wherein the subject is on statin therapy,optionally stable statin therapy.
 11. The method of claim 1, wherein thesubject is diabetic.
 12. The method of claim 1, wherein the highbaseline serum glucose level is a fasting serum glucose level of atleast 160 mg/dL.
 13. The method of claim 1, wherein the high baselineserum glucose level is a non-fasting serum glucose level of at least 200mg/dL.